Tuesday Highlights

Good morning.

  1. The Stasi.
  2. Textbooks to rent.
  3. The cosmological argument for God (HT: Mr Carter).
  4. Two climate related incidents, CERN decides good science practices are bad (for politics, I guess), and some past (and present) climate consensi. Today’s predictions, of course, are going to be so so much more accurate, in part because of the policies noted in the first post help make for good progress (in which good doesn’t mean accurate).
  5. That number, I offer, packs a lot of garbage statistics. My Honda for example is, likely, 65-70% less costly to refuel than the average car (at 70/80 mpg) and it’s a gas burner (and energy taxes on gasoline are the same as for that average car). Add taxes into the mix, the somewhat suspect eMPG conversion, and voila you’re probably around 90%.
  6. Marriage and that ugly patriarchy stuff.
  7. Russia and abortion, today.
  8. One pro-choice person fears some pro-life groups steer toward perferred outcomes (apparently that steering isn’t a problem when pro-choice groups do the same). We call that hypocrisy.
  9. Neanderthal!
  10. Why? Because momentum is mass * velocity and energy is 1/2 * mass * velocity squared. Damage is related to energy, momementum is what affects recoil.
  11. Poverty is not relative.
  12. Party on dude.
  13. Out of the mouths of liberal spokespersons.

4 responses to “Tuesday Highlights

  1. Marriage and that ugly patriarchy stuff.

    What is the point of this creepy story and your phrase “ugly patriarchy stuff?” I assume you’re being sarcastic, because sarcastic seems to be your nature, but surely you can’t be implying that “he regarded her as his daughter and himself as her father” is not a patriarchal model. So is it the “ugly” part? Are you saying that patriarchy is beautiful? I’m really at a loss here.

    Out of the mouths of liberal spokespersons.

    That’s two days in a row you’ve lied about who Bill Maher is. Or are you using some idiosyncratic definition of “spokesperson” that nobody else does?

  2. JA,

    That’s two days in a row you’ve lied about who Bill Maher is.

    I’m using your (and Boonton’s) definition. Y’all like to define/nominate Mr Limbaugh and so forth as spokespersons for conservatives. So I figured that’s they way you prefer it, i.e., allow representatives from the putative other side to identify who might be spokesperson.

  3. I’m pretty sure I’ve never called Limbaugh a spokesperson for conservatives.

  4. JA,
    Boonton has and I gather his notion is not unique to him.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>