Monday Highlights

From the city of Henderson, affixed to the somewhat ghastly garish city of Los Vegas comes … links

  1. Re Piketty.
  2. Non-violence and guns, what you didn’t know, part one and two.
  3. Ballet noted.
  4. The unimpressive Mr Kerry’s impressively bad idea. The “bad” is the reason for the repeated adjective.
  5. Foodly notions.
  6. Surprise, not.
  7. Diogenes failed to find an honest man. Liberal’s arguing that the “state” in the Obamacare mandate included the feds … are evidence he’d still be looking. Liberals who argue that way are impressively dishonest. Look when you specifically design a thing to exclude the fed subsidy as an incentive to get states to buy in … then you can’t down the road argue you mean to include fed subsidies. You just can’t, and retain any sense of respect.
  8. Won’t end well.
  9. A top ten headline.
  10. What is it.
  11. Failing, as so many do, to replace “terrorist” with synonyms like “mass murderers” and/or “serial killers”. Because that is what they are. And no, “this isn’t personal it’s political” doesn’t excuse mass murder. Sorry.

Gotta run.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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


  1. Boonton says:


    Two problems with this theory:

    1. It wasn’t designed to exclude subsidies. While carrot/stick incentives were purposefully built into the law in other areas (mainly expanding Medicaid), there is no structural reason to care one way or the other about whether a state sets up their own exchange or uses the Federal gov’t to do it.

    2. Grubner’s full statement indicated that states should set up exchanges because he felt if they didn’t AND if the Feds failed to have working THEN individuals couldn’t get subsidies per the law. That would clearly indicate the opposite belief, that subsidies would apply provided the Feds got working, which in the end they did.

  2. Boonton says:

    11.Failing, as so many do, to replace “terrorist” with synonyms like “mass murderers” and/or “serial killers”.

    Are these synonyms? ‘Serial killers’ are usually considered to have some type of individual psychosis and rarely work in coporation with others, let alone some larger cause or ideology. ‘Mass murderers’ is fine except that one can be a terrorist without murdering even a single person let alone a mass of them.

  3. Mark says:

    The equivalence to note between serial killers, mass murderers and terrorists is a moral one. And yes a terrorist could be bombing empty buildings and doing great property damage. Which would make him an unusual terrorist today and oddly enough practicing legal warfare. But Hamas, ISIS and so on aren’t those sort of terrorists. They’re just a hypothetical to pretend the moral equivalence of a cannibal and a Hamas rocketeer shooting rockets from pre-schooler’s rooftops at shopping centers doesn’t exist. Sorry. You may be right. He’s likely more reprehensible.

  4. Boonton says:

    1. Actually there are quite a few terrorists who attack property. ‘Eco-terrorists’ for example usually are not trying to kill people. A lot of violent acts by 60’s radicals attempted to avoid harming people. The 80’s esp. were filled with Palestinian based airline hijackings that often did not entail killing everyone as a goal (often no one was killed). Even today various terrorists groups in the M.E. and in South America use kidnapping and ransom both as terrorism and general fund raising.

    Hamas rocketeer shooting rockets from pre-schooler’s rooftops at shopping centers doesn’t exist.

    Given that it appears to require several hundred Hamas rockets to *maybe* hit one actual thing of value exactly how does one know a rocketeer was shooting ‘at’ a shopping center?