Monday Link Dump

Hey. Weekend is done.

  1. Meta-linking (linking of links), and I will say, the point on the “trauma” is spot on.
  2. So, Christmas and Islam.
  3. Teh noodity meets the Constitution.
  4. One of those models looks like it’s still tracking the data, although it does it by predicting very little warming.
  5. Powder go bang.
  6. Obamacare and a twist.
  7. Nicknames and history.
  8. Danger! Danger! Danger!(Will Robinson?)
  9. Snarf.
  10. Click through, it’s worth your while.
  11. Oddly enough actual leadership involves people following your lead. Doesn’t matter what you say, if you can’t get people to follow your lead … and in fact they resist and go the other way either your a bad leader (and didn’t realize they’d not follow) or you intended the result that was achieved (the not following).

Tuesday Highlights

Last full day in Jersey.

  1. Of course, what he misses is that those millions would be captive Democrats.
  2. PC from the CP. Succinct.
  3. In that same vein.
  4. A suit that shouldn’t win.
  5. A question asked.
  6. Origen would not seen a difficulty and that was in the 2nd century.
  7. If anyone doubts modern liberals are clueless when it comes to Christian beliefs, doubt no longer.
  8. Tech and art working together.
  9. A very non-standard interpretation of Shostakovitch’s 7th.
  10. Uhm, some Duh Science. Stress impacts the immune system negatively. That isn’t news.


Monday Highlights

Ok. Back to it, after all, I haven’t stopped reading and saving links, just reporting them. So, what’s in the backlog.

  1. Here’s a x-mas suggestion for the old-calendar practitioners who haven’t gotten anything yet. (For those who don’t know, much of the Easter Orthodox are still on the Julian calendar 13 days later than the Gregorian until the end of the century. This is why the Orthodox Easter/Pascha is so wildly different from the West, as both are based on the full moon after the spring equinox, but … when that equinox is changes by 13 days).
  2. Mr Degrasse’s 8 “books everyone should read“. Yikes.
  3. I haven’t a clue whether Mr Schraub disapproves or approves but, geesh, anyone who holds Israel and ISIS as morally equivalent is ethically blind and should be regarded functionally as a psychopath.
  4. Here is another equivalence, possibly slightly less morally suspect.
  5. Yet again, repeat ad infintum, the argument against torture is not gotten via consequentialism.
  6. I’m not up to speed on hate speech and the legal status of same, but as a layperson one would be lead to suspect that “hate speech” should involve in some way, you know, actual hate or even mild dislike.
  7. Speaking of which, there are plenty of liberals who clearly hate conservatives. I wonder if their hate-speech microscope will be turned on themselves in this regard?
  8. Union labor and why it sucks so often.
  9. Very cool.
  10. Graft and equalite, liberte, fraternite (and buckets of blood).
  11. A gun (which is sort of on my wish-I-had-one list)

The Cunning (and current) Plan

So the current cunning (blog) plan is to return to weekday (Sun/Mon-Thursday) daily links blogging, 5 days a week and an occasional essay. I’m not giving up on returning to essay blogging but I’m not going to try that again until my #2 daughter has gone off to college (late August).

With that being said, links return tonight. Wednesday however will be a off-day as I will be on the train all day returning to Chicago.

Off the Cuff

So, Dr Gruber, not a politician. Ya think? This gets much mileage in the press and the liberal politicians are going distance themselves from him as if he he were scalding acid. Abortion as eugenics, to be applied to minorities, hmm. That’s palatable, albeit Ms Sanger was in the camp too I think. Regarding Mr Gruber, the outrage is confusing. I mean, here is a guy who admits selling Obamacare on falsehoods. But I mean, why is the right acting all put out? Those lies were not believed by the right, but by the left. Why is the left not outraged that they were sold a bill of goods? Politics remains very confusing for me.

Some IQ specialist thinks he has evidence that intelligence is not nuture but nature, which will alas irk the (mostly racist) race theorists no end (see this too). So, if it comes out that intelligence (and therefore success in school) are due to nature not nurture, can we stop with the stupidly high inheritance taxes that the left thinks are necessary to stop the “rich” from having unfair advantages?

I wonder what this sort of graph but instead for the WWII Germany/Soviet Eastern front wars would look like. It would be appalling I think. Appropos of that and in the discussion which mention Napoleon’s final defeat at Waterloo. But like most of the Western canonical history forget that Russian led armies sacked Paris in 1814. The same poster (rightly) mocks those college students of today who are so so so ignorant of history it seems.

Regarding Ms Feinstein and her “release” of CIA investigations on torture. The left’s thesis (which is badly flawed) is (a suggested thesis of her report) is that torture doesn’t work, ergo we shouldn’t do it. Actually historically it seems very very likely that when done efficiently with an understanding of what you are up to, it works and works very well. See Mr Fernandez excellent book  No Way In (or read about the Gestapo and well, anywhere they operated). Look. Every single time a resistance cell loses a member to the torture using establishment everyone has to find a new safe houses, move and so on. Why? This wouldn’t be so if torture was ineffective. But. It is. The argument against torture is not that it isn’t effective or cost effective but that is immoral. It is wrong. That is the only argument needed or which should be used against it.


Reader’s Exercise

So, Mr Obama is going to offer his “executive order” on immigration tonight. Constitutional scholars are going to offer their opinions. But I’m going to give you a homework assignment, in two parts no less.

Part 1. Imagine a Democrat held Senate/House and a GOP conservative President. Craft what you might see as an abortion executive order that would elicit the same <em>Constitutional</em> objections regarding balance of powers between Congress and Executive as are debated by, say, the Volokh lawyers in the wake of Obama’s immigration order.

Part 2. If you honestly did the homework of part one, explain why (if GOP) you support the part 1 proposal but object to Mr Obama’s proposal or, if a Democrat why you support Mr Obama but reject the GOP proposal.

(note: if you are “consistent” and oppose/support both, this is probably a sign you didn’t honestly complete part 1).

A Few Remarks on the Comet/Shirt Kerfuffle

Ms Althouse has some interesting remarks regarding this kerfuffle (I’m going to assume those readers aren’t hiding under baskets and know the actual subject of this particular kerfuffle, which dealt with particular details on an engineer’s shirt during a press release after the successful landing of a satellite on a comet). Mr Reynolds (Instapundit) points that the landing on a comet by a satellite is more important than what a person wears and the “feminists” (or some feminists) were hijacking this event. Ms Althouse in an attempt to “be provocative” suggests:

And I will be more provocative: In the broad span of human culture, fashion is more important than space travel.

She is in some ways correct, in other ways not. I will return her provocative remark by noting that which is important about fashion, is exactly the same as what is important about “space travel” or landing on comets. What is important about fashion is man’s search for beauty. This is the central search in science, space travel, and much of engineering. The search for a beautiful solution is not far adrift from the cathedral (architectural beauty) or fashion (beatiful people/clothing). Beautiful clothes and in general the quest for beauty is precisely what was achieved in a different field (aerospace engineering) as what is sought (and I’d offer rarely found) on the fashion runway. Fashion is not “more important” than space travel. Landing spacecraft on comets is the height of fashion for those who don’t do color and form, but instead do maths.

And I disagree that wearing that shirt is “an attack on feminism”. Feminism celebrates such displays, witness vagina displays, slut walks &c. I’ll also disagree with Ms Althouse that he intentionally “made a statement” by wearing that shirt. More likely, given the engineering culture, is that is was the top “button down” (read as ‘fancy’) shirt in his drawer or closet.

Secular Immortality and Cinema

Two films recently have been very similar (and this afternoon I saw the second, even though it’s been out for some time). Elysium and In Time are very similar. Both feature a totalitarian control on magically efficient health care. In both access to this is highly restricted. In both of them health (or immortality) access is highly restricted. Why? Population pressure is explicitly mentioned on one, but it is not clear that this is the problem they might pretend. As an extreme, Michael Moorcock’s Dancers at the End of Time are all immortal by a technology long lost and long forgotten. Our hero in that story is unusual, he’s the only person alive who was “born”.   Continue reading →

And They Pretend Ms Palin is Stupid

Ms Clinton trumps everyone on the stupid-meter.

If there is any justice, listen to Ms Clinton. This has to be one of the top 10 stupidest things said by a politician, “business doesn’t create jobs”. Honey, the only thing creating jobs are businesses.

And she doubles down with “trickle down doesn’t work”. Uhm, “trickle down” is Democrat slang for growth. And if you think growth doesn’t help, then why aren’t we all stone age subsistence farmers? Oh, we’re doing quite a bit better. Why? Hmm, that would be that growth thing.

If anyone votes for her now, they’re deluded.

Better You Than Me (literally)

So. In the next few essay’s I’m going to begin a small series commenting on my reading the book (of essays coincidentally enough) by Christos Yannaras titled “The Meaning of Reality: Essays on Existence and Communion, Eros and History”. My plan is to go through this book essay by essay. Some essay’s I’ll separate a precis post (summary) and follow that with one or more posts with remarks refering back to that post. What follows (below the fold) is the remarks on the first essay titled, “A Reference to Alyosha Karamazov”. This is short (3 1/2 pages) and I’ll perhaps to combine summary and remarks in one post. This opens with a quote from the Brothers’ Karamazov (from which, obviously, the character Alyosha is drawn).

  • I understand it only too well: it’s the innards and the belly that long to love. You put it wonderfully, and I am terribly glad you have such an appetite for life,” Alyosha cried. “I have always thought that, before anything else, people should learn to love life in this world”
  • “To love life more than the meaning of life?”
  • “Yes that’s right. That’s the way it should be; love should come before logic, just as you said. Only then will man be able to understand the meaning of life.”

And so we begin (below the fold) Continue reading →

Simple Consistency

So, if as noted last night, consistency in political stance was seen as valuable is this even possible. Consistency, or the lack thereof, is used often as a rhetorical weapon for example, “how can you support/oppose abortion saying life is valuable if you oppose/support the death penalty?” is an example. Here lack of consistency is seen as a failing. Yet every political plank is wrought through and through with inconsistencies. Is a global consistent stance on issues possible?

Looking the maths as a template, often in group theory a trivial example which satisfies your criteria serves as both a useful model and an existence proof. It so happens that with respect to consistency. So is there a (or set of) trivial consistent ideological stances one might take? Indeed. It seems apparent that the single issue (if simple enough) individual can take an internally consistent stance, if “oppose abortion”, “love pets”, or “taxes suck”  is your only public position then you can consistently offer a position on all relevant issues and abstain on the rest consistently.

This is of course, not something anyone does. People have have a varied number (in which that number is greater than one) of positions they’d like to hold. Many times these issues are in conflict. How a particular resolves a conflict differ, but it also demonstrates the relative importance of those same issues. A Democrat driving/owning an SUV indicates that status symbol ownership is more important than climate.

So inconsistency is not exactly an indication of actual inconsistency, but one of the evaluation of multiple criteria and their weightings. Thus a SUV owning Democrat who claims global warming is an urgent priority is signaling that the “urgency” part of this statement is at best empty rhetoric (more likely an untruth). This ownership doesn’t signal an inconsistent belief, just that it signals the priority of which this particular belief holds in their panoply of positions.

A Confusion of Party

In the US, Democrats (liberals) and the GOP (conservatives) are confused. Liberals fear jingoism, patriotism and enthusiasm for the country, yet prefer and support big government. Studies show Conservatives want to belong, are patriotic, and demonstrate enthusiasm for their country yet they are the anti-government party. The Democrats affirm support for the “little guy” against corporate and government abuse (not unrelated … this weekend Mr Obama held a 50k per plate dinner in which he spoke (apparently not ironically) against income inequality. Those conservatives that doubt Mr Obama’s oratorical skills should note that somehow that was delivered and received without a pause or for laughter (or an expectation of same)). Idiots of course abound on both sides of the aisle, partisan flacks somehow manage to only remark on those on their side. Mr Schraub, old time blog neighbor, for example manages to notice dumb statements regarding Ebola from the GOP, apparently missing almost identical stupidity from members of his party. Democrats claim to support those without defense, yet a party de facto requirement is that to be a Democrat one must support abortion. A fetus is without question one of the most vulnerable points of the human existence. Conservatives on the other hand, struggle to reconcile their “don’t tread on me” with desiring crack downs (by government) on illegal aliens and enforcing restrictions on marriage. Liberals drive their big SUVs to “green” global warming affairs and lay claim to be the “party of science” (on global warming) while at the same time speaking out against the “dangers” of vaccinations.

The point is that the neither side of the aisle is the least bit consistent in either their choice of ideals or their application of same. So, this consistency thing, is it of any value at all? Is expediency and power for its own sake the only priority? Sides have to be taken so the party leaders divvy up positions on a first come first served historical basis? Must the non players be always forced to choose party and pol by principles of which is the “least worst”. Is consistency of principles possible?

So what next? Well, the task (for tonight) seems to be as follows, first is an y consistent policy/ideological stance possible? This might follow several steps, first can one make a “toy” internally consistent stance (the analogous Maths thing would be a trivial solution or an existence proof). If not, then perhaps the only solution is to follow Eastern church’s solution to doctrine in contrast to the Western (western tends to go by Catechisms and statements of faith, the East in place of statements patterned after law points to a large body of poetry as to define their beliefs). If a toy solution is possible, then the next step would be to search for a realistic one.  Then finally if realistic solutions are possible, we might try to find some realistic consistent ideals to which one might desire to hold for oneself.

One of the fundamental problems with “being consistent” and not contravening known features of governance is that there are tensions. Government is, currently, by definition “top down”, the government dictates to the governed. Yet, as Hayek pointed out asymmetry of information points to an essential flaw of the top down approach. In some sense, having any government at all runs against the informational asymmetry. But of course, having no government (as Hobbes pointedly assures us) leads to nasty, brutish, and short lives, which is not at all conducive to life, liberty, and the pursuit of eudaimonia (happiness).

(to be continued)

A Change of Pace

For the last two weeks, those few who follow this blog have noticed I’ve not posted. My posting of late has been irregular and I’ve some changes are in order. When I began this blog, I wrote an essay every night. I have since accomplished my primary goal. Which was to write much better. My sentences are now more structured, less frequently I resorted to double negatives, fewer non-sentences jammed in there, hopefully I get the correct preposition more often than not, and so on. Then time constraints occurred, plus I had less “new” to say and I resorted to my strengths, that is to say … I read very fast so collecting links was perceived as something I could do well. For I had begun my interest in blogs as a reader not a writer. I had, and still have, a large list of feeds which I keep up with and I read quickly. “Links” posting become a stop gap.

At present I see a few choices. I could stop. I could continue link blogging. I could try to start writing regular essays. I could try some combination of the above.

So …. after this two week period. What have I decided. Well, I’m going to try returning to essay blogging. I’ll use links occasionally to spur conversation, but I think the links only posting will fade away. I don’t know how regular I’ll manage to write. But … on this flight to Atlanta, I’m going to write. The results … you see in the next post.

Thanks for your patience as always.

Wednesday Highlights

At long last, more links.

  1. More CO2.
  2. Yikes.
  3. I have to say, vis a vis corn, that comparing corn grits and cream of wheat and how hungry I am four hours later in the morning, corn beats wheat hands down.
  4. The minority leader and doing self parody right. Man, she has teh stupid in buckets, eh?
  5. Some politicians around the globe, however, are make Ms Pelosi look less worse.
  6. Neat interior design.
  7. Tranadol found in trees, or more precisely, not found in trees. Interesting though.
  8. ‘cuse me, any “theory of tattoos” has to include “alcohol was involved in the decision making”.
  9. Heh.
  10. On banning prayer at games. Reminds me of the Soviet era story of the pols proclaiming to the crowd how religion in the USSR was dead and gone … somebody in the crowd shouted “Christ is Risen” and the whole crowd responded back automatically “He is Risen Indeed”.
  11. Looking into the near future crystal ball, optimistically.
  12. Relics of the Cross.


Friday Highlights


  1. Ms Bathory was close.
  2. Human’s are nothing if not adaptable.
  3. Remembering 9/11 and something about it you probably didn’t know.
  4. Max-Sec in the deep south.
  5. Yikes.
  6. More yikes.
  7. Constitutional authority … but don’t worry, Mr Yoo is for it.
  8. Unintended consequence (but … easily predicted consequences should not be unintentional. So is it an intentional consequence then?)
  9. The wrong air force.
  10. Mr Kerry, “if you don’t study” … comes back to haunt, eh?
  11. Let’s see, it is “regrettable” that a guy who thinks it OK to offer that the Israeli Prime minister would wear the teeth of Palestinian children publicly doesn’t get tenure … Hmmm. What’d that site offer on various conservative remarks that lost people jobs or positions?
  12. Incoherence from the left, noted.
  13. We’re waiting for the really really cool lightning bolt.
  14. Liberal much? Geesh. So, do you think that next week they write an essay comparing Mr Obama to Joseph Kony? ‘Tis about as logical and as outrageous.

Tuesday Highlights

Yet another hotel.

  1. Some theology.
  2. Some things the police has for which they have no reasonable need.
  3. Some history if you follow the linked link.
  4. Well, TR said (I think) “walk softly and carry a big stick.” Our knucklehead in chief has a variant of that phrase, which alas, is stickless.
  5. More here.
  6. Some jokes all with the same punch line.
  7. Crime and punishment.
  8. Global warming.
  9. Cool. (probably literally as well)
  10. Nature’s beauty (and the beast).

Thursday Highlights

Good, err, day.

  1. A post sort of against profiling. Profiling is racist when the criteria chosen are inappropriate. if race is a factor predictive of crime then race is not an inappropriate criteria. In setting a defensive line, you put your forces where the bulk of the attacks are expected. This isn’t “profiling”.
  2. Rape culture.
  3. Scraping the ugly barnacles from the underside of civilization as a job.
  4. The prior reality is why “slower to draw” is a death sentence for many.
  5. Fun and snow.
  6. Somebody fulfilled their photographic bucket list.
  7. Government waste examined.
  8. ‘gainst mines and IEDs … a tool.
  9. The constitutional right to be an ass. Wonder if the left would be defending that U of I Urbana professor if he wore that in public (and not at work).
  10. Apparently 83% of American’s are out of their freaking minds. Or the poll is just another damn cricket race. I’d rather the law went the other way.
  11. Embrace your coming disrespectability. There’s even a beatitude about that.

Monday Highlights

G’day, hump day (of my 15 day workweek) is over.

  1. More grist for the Ferguson discussion.
  2. Here too.
  3. Some silliness. Signs like this are pertinent, when people who accidentally do this roam the earth.
  4. Film.
  5. I’d go with #10, #9 and #1.
  6. Some basic points in theology which everyone should agree, here and here … but a whole lot of people get stuck on them.
  7. Piketty points.
  8. Confused about the outrage. So ‘splain it for us, eh?
  9. Well, you always have the two choices, are they stupid or evil?
  10. I don’t see what’s wrong with being liked because you are smart. Do you?
  11. Very cool.


At Long Last … Grhmph … Links?

Travel travel.

  1. So. I sorta missed a lot of Ferguson kerfuffle. Aside from the “we’re angry, scared, and affronted … therefore let’s loot lots of innocent bystanders shops” logic fail. Very few facts are out so most noise and nonsense seems to me to be just that. This however, may give some useful information going forward.
  2. In the context of Ferguson, liberals still striving to keep the black man down.
  3. Of course, she’s waiting for the GOP field to flesh out. (or not)
  4. Mr Perry was indicted apparently. So, if the GOP was not behind the indictment … explain why since everyone (pundits and others) “knows” that an impeachment of Mr Obama would (a) not lead to a conviction and (b) aid the Democrats in 2014 midterms, why do the similar (presumably Democrats) think that a weak indictment of Mr Perry which (a) would not lead to conviction and why the don’t think the “b” supposition is also not true.
  5. The wisdom of our press.
  6. An answer to the eagles in book one LOTR question.
  7. I ordered the book … (see item 2 above … alongside the why do liberals hate Asians?)
  8. Well, guesses 1-10 are wrong, and likely somewhat bigoted. The right answer is “one who forgets (a) “judge not lest you be judged” and from which follows the question who is the righteous judge, to which we know the answer.
  9. The greatest sentence? The Orthodox Christian answer would be the Jesus Prayer. A physicist would say Emmy Noether’s theorem.
  10. Drones on the move.

Tuesday Highlights

Well, the startup push is still on after working the weekend. So posting yesterday (and comments responses have been slow). Sorry.

  1. A big bug.
  2. She blinded me with “science”.
  3. An approach to Jewish/Christian communications.
  4. Of schooling and culture.
  5. The flexibility of Obamacare exchanges … or not.
  6. The poster also notes the number of people beaten and/or mugged “for being not-black” right? Oh. No? Hmm.
  7. Paul Krugman is an idiot. Seriously, … he actually pretends to think that the “cost” of bureaucracy and regulation is the salary of the bureaucrat(s). Man that’s top fuel stupid.
  8. Terrorism is best defined by the method not the motive.
  9. Madness.

Friday Highlights

Oooh. I get to work this weekend in the land of hot and dry.

  1. Stupid human tricks.
  2. Something about history and ignorance from the prior post is recapped here, uhm, Poul Anderson’s High Crusade comes to mind.
  3. What to do if your car gets a browser.
  4. Until a baby sitter attaches it to the family dog and lets it run.
  5. Academics often tout “there are no stupid questions” … this blog site contradicts that premise with the “multiple attempts … (to ask the world’s dumbest question)”.
  6. So. Is that a maxim? Is it true that “No coerced virtue is a virtue?” It’s true for charity?
  7. $11 billion. Yikes.
  8. Is real?


Thursday Highlights


  1. Meta-ethics and theology.
  2. He’s got the look. (had?)
  3. Appropriate force, a suggested metric.
  4. This is not unrelated. And besides, the way Palestine wages war is designed to increase Palestinian civilian casualties. Guess what? It works.
  5. Ban having wrong effect.
  6. So. Do you love it? My advice for people who hate exercise, is to use a rowing machine as it has the most bang for your minute giving you strength + cardio hitting all your big muscles at the same time.
  7. Well, if the headline doesn’t take things out of context, that’s a self-refuting statement. I suspect however, it was merely a laugh line.
  8. Slurp.
  9. Unintended irony provided by government incompetence (or is it intentional malpractice?)
  10. State and the 2nd.
  11. With that in mind, it seems signs suggesting most efficient behavior would be better than just “merge ahead”.
  12. A gadget to watch for.

Tuesday Highlights

Thumbs up on Guardians …  links?

  1. In spite of? The rest of the sports world calls it a “contract year” and typically athletes (oddly enough) excel at such times.
  2. I disagree, lives both American, Japanese and others were saved. How about returning eastern bloc captives (to the Germans) in WWII to Stalin against their protestations or post WWII repairing Kolyma transport ships which we sold them in the first place as unforced “bad things” in our past?
  3. Those many socialist medical advances.
  4. Technology and the poor.
  5. Good or bad?
  6. Training. Which brings to mind the immortal Fausto Coppi quote on training for cycling, “Ride a bike, ride a bike, ride a bike”.
  7. Pretty.
  8. If this administration (or other beltway knuckleheads) ask for “loyalty oaths” … grrrrr.
  9. Possibly confused about the Michael Phelps set, which mixes strength and endurance leaning toward the former, not the latter.
  10. Because our Administration and the Democrats are absolutely certain they don’t want another repeat of the Martin Luther King Jr debacle.
  11. More on Piketty.
  12. Democracy in a nutshell.
  13. Stupid democracy tricks are not confined to this side of the pond however.
  14. A pattern begun.

Wednesday Highlights

Well, worked hard enough that I think I can come home (sort of) a day early, Thursday night instead of mid-day Friday.

  1. Our press missed another one. Or did I miss the flood of reporting and in depth analysis (I don’t think I did).
  2. Spot on, for myself Cassian trumped Augustine and I crossed the Bosporus.
  3. A proposal. Comments?
  4. So … do you think it worked or not?
  5. Western Europeans should not be proud.
  6. Speaking of which, … a suggestion.
  7. A bad anti-gun argument, which makes a case for women to be armed and trained, which I’m (just) guessing wasn’t the point.
  8. Boredom. Never a problem with the universe, which is endlessly fascinating, but with you. Kids don’t appreciate being told that however.
  9. Liberals will never ever believe that even though true.
  10. So, why illegal (besides government is up to it’s normal tricks, e.g., being stupid). And seems to me you should be signing things to get not refuse liability coverage. Our society has it bas-ackwards.
  11. Hack. Spit. (all I have to say, except geesh Biden is contemptible)
  12. No, no no. Democrats are the cargo cultists in that analogy, Kerry is the faux airplane.
  13. Pride in your country, eh?
  14. Love of sport.
  15. Criticism of Pickety (HT).
  16. A good response to the “plagarism because of PTSD” excuse.
  17. If you didn’t think people were incredibly weird … just sayin

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.

Wednesday Highlights

Man. It’s hot down South, especially when where you work isn’t air conditioned. I kept wiping sweat from my laptop keyboard today.

  1. Hmm.
  2. or should the be Mmmm.
  3. So. Is turnabout fair play?
  4. Up up and away.
  5. First off … as far as I can see Putin and Russia have nothing to gain (and perhaps some to lose) by doing so. Anybody out there think they can see a gain for them? If not, then this is not a surprise.
  6. Let’s see, those who study gun violence find said violence has little sensitivity to gun control legislation yet the left promotes that above all else to control said violence. A pattern emerges. Stupid travels in packs.
  7. Statism and its effects.
  8. I travel quite a bit. This I’ve never noticed.
  9. Mr Dungy’s remarks. If Mr Dungy had said, “I wouldn’t want to draft the President’s son (assume for a moment the President or some similarly famous individual had entering the draft as a prospective 5th (!!!) round offensive linemen) because of the press and attention and non-football related distractions surrounding him.” People would nod understanding. Guess what. Same thing here. You people who want to find a bigot under every rock … are practicing what you wish to detract.
  10. From the opinion, the salient quote. Principled objections?
  11. A film noted. I think it’s important to point out, realistic gun behavior (unlike the film in question) improves not detracts the story, the drama, and the tension. It works in books. Why doesn’t the US film industry get that?
  12. Musing on the future.
  13. The other way the “health care costs” are bent down. And it’s not a good way, which is to say eschewing progress.
  14. Demographics.


Thursday Highlights


  1. So. A bad year for Malaysian airlines, a flight from Kuala Lampur to Amsterdam (I believe) was shot down over the Ukraine.  True to form the talking heads say stupid things, here and here. “May be a tragedy” Hmm. What more do you need to know to figure out that this was not a tragedy but a horrible act of terror. And “Hell to pay”? What?! You’re going to do what!? I’ll make my prediction on the outcome of this. The conventional wisdom or generally accepted wisdom of what actually happened will be a lie. Decades down the road when the truth comes out, it won’t be the story that you hear a month or two from now.
  2. Here is some reaction from the East.
  3. How Obamacare bends the cost curve. They didn’t promise which direction it would bend, eh?
  4. Not what you want to see.
  5. Probably not a site to warm the cockles of the hearts of the pro-abortion crowd. (with that in mind … )
  6. A suggestion for a best piece. I’d go with Shostokovich’s 10th.
  7. From the crowd that misunderstands the Constitution and Bill of Rights. When it doesn’t make a difference a thing should be allowed, not restricted. Hint: Where gun laws are relaxed it leads to no perceptible increase in gun violence. Duh.
  8. The UN and legal responsibility.
  9. Imaging the earth’s interior.

Wednesday Highlights


  1. This is said a lot (that good teachers don’t insist a student “believe”, or pretend to believe, what the teacher believes to get a good grade). I don’t think it is true. A commentor remarks that this may not be true in science but is in philosophy. Let’s see a student decide that predicate logic is random nonsense and see how that flies. The point is, that even in philosophy or other “soft” sciences you can’t just believe whatever you want willy-nilly and pretend that’s just your opinion … so you should get a good grade no matter what you say. I’m not saying this well. The point being all fields have parts which are bedrock, which make up the framework of discussion and are not negotiable. Then there are those points on which reasonable people can differ. You can’t disagree that 1+1=2, but you can on the axiom of choice. Same goes for Philosophy, Econ and other such fields of study.
  2. Continuing with the right’s inability to grok what the left is all up in arms about with respect to Hobby Lobby, e.g., how is “not buying you something” an imposition.
  3. Of what interest would the justice department have in a parade (answer: Constitutionally speaking none at all). Y’all on the left can now explain.
  4. So. Does that conservative pass the liberal Turing test?
  5. Betcha it won’t be sold here.

Hmm. Slow news day?

Monday/Tuesday Highlights

So, emergency run Sunday night through today to a customer site. Ahm back.

  1. To distinguish from the amphibian crises.
  2. A description of liberal attitudes.
  3. Summertime homework.
  4. Grist for the marriage discussion.
  5. Sounds likely, although I think the correlation is that increased wealth leads to more consumption and wealth tracks also with green.
  6. Two dismal wizards disagree.
  7. Qualified is not a high on the Democratic voter’s list of concerns.
  8. When I was growing up, reading the books, honor was important and I still think it is. Killing your children however doesn’t remotely connect with any notion of honorable actions that I’ve ever heard of. It would be nice if the right meaning of honor became the primary one again.
  9. Tis true.
  10. He rode and tried to get back in the bunch for almost an hour. Remember that.
  11. I suspect caffeine and alcohol and sugar aren’t on this list.
  12. Put these two posts together, here and here.
  13. A book noted. another one of a different sort.

Thursday Highlights


  1. The first sentence highlights a thing I never have understood, the hardship chic, recovering poor/drug abuser/alcoholic/what-have-you as a good thing.
  2. Almost certainly fictional but I laughed anyway.
  3. That immigration thang, #3 is the salient point. This an attack.
  4. D&D strikes again. Speaking of which.
  5. Glub.
  6. Content and intent. Apparently only the latter is required.
  7. Turnabout in politics remains not fair play. The rest of us disagree.
  8. Why?
  9. For those who think net security is never needed.
  10. A worse job than yours … assuming that the guy who has that job isn’t reading this.
  11. Hmm. Knowing how long you have to wait makes a big difference.
  12. Subway.
  13. Advertising done right.

Tuesday Highlights

A little late, ’cause feedly seemed to be down.

  1. Voter Id coming back into the news.
  2. But this probably won’t be. Hopefully, ’cause it sounds like sound and fury signifying very little.
  3. Works for me. And I should be ashamed, I guess.
  4. That right/left ire, a clue to a possible cause.
  5. More Clinton backstory.
  6. Sexual “harassment” and poorly thought out guidelines.
  7. A book noted.
  8. Something for the affirmative action fans.
  9. The party ‘gainst women.
  10. No.
  11. So. There’s a “border crises”. Lots of talk. Allegedly for some reason which nobody seems to talk about suddenly (?) thousands of unaccompanied minors are flooding across our southern border. Why? It seems odd to me that nobody at all seems to be talking about that. When you have a bacterial infection you take antibiotics and not drugs to combat fever. Because that’s the root cause.