Well, that was quite a Super Bowl. Does Proverbs 29:4 have any insight into the outcome?
By justice a king gives a country stability,
but those who are greedy for bribes tear it down.
… I guess not.
I'm a Wired subscriber. It is in the Condé Nast stable of
magazines, which means a frustrating mixed bag: wonderful
occasionally, dreadful when it feels the need to inject political
commentary into its content.
This seeps into its online presence too. An example of "pretty good": "A Blackjack Superstar Explains the Odds of the Historic Patriots Win"
Up 28-10 with two minutes left, the Falcons had a 99 percent chance to win the game. That probability comes from readily-available calculators—which run Monte Carlo simulations, taking into account the four variables of possession, down, distance, and score. But then the Falcons made a series of errors in basic strategy.
[What were they? If you know much about football, the answers aren't too surprising: they should have run more time off the clock between plays, and shifted to rushing over passing.]
But then, the dreadful: their view of the best Super Bowl commercials. Criteria for judging? Production values and cleverness, not so much. Heavy-handed stroking of progressive sensibilities? Ding! For example, "the best" is Budweiser:
Eberhard Anheuser meets German immigrant Adolphus Busch in this tale of the founding of one of America’s most well-known breweries. Is it a not-subtle commentary on President Trump’s immigration policy? Yes. But does it make its point? Also yes.
You have to still be reading Slate to learn the ad is largely fictitious.
Yes, Wired also adored the dreadful Audi commercial.
President Trump seems to be as bad as Candidate Trump when it comes
to apologizing for murderous thuggish dictators, invoking an asinine
argument. Jay Caruso at RedState:
Forget President Obama’s “apology tour.” The deference Donald Trump shows to Vladimir Putin is astounding. It’s one thing for an incoming administration to be cautious take some time to assess a situation before making any grand statements. But Trump’s infatuation with Vladimir Putin is dangerous, and in an interview with Bill O’Reilly on Fox News, Trump didn’t allay those concerns. In fact, he made it much worse.
The relevant bit of transcript:
O’REILLY: But he’s a killer, though. Putin’s a killer.
TRUMP: A lot of killers. You got a lot of killers. What, you think our country’s so innocent?
Patterico notes that we've come to a pretty pass when Mitch McConnell shows more testicular fortitude than Trump:
McCONNELL: Well, look: Putin’s a former KGB agent. He’s a thug. He was not elected in a way that most people would consider a credible election. The Russians annexed Crimea, invaded Ukraine, and messed around in our elections. No, I don’t think there’s any equivalency between the way that the Russians conduct themselves and the way the United States does.
Which brings us to our Tweet du Jour:
Nothing says Super Bowl Sunday like football, wings, beer and our President falsely equating our nation with a murderous dictatorship. 🇺🇸— Rory Cooper (@rorycooper) February 5, 2017
At the Daily Signal, Caleb Ecarma informs:
"Conservatives Pressure 12 Democrats on Supreme Court Pick".
Two conservative advocacy organizations hope to stop Senate Democrats from blocking President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee.
The twelve Sentate Democrats listed in the article are those from states Trump carried, or otherwise considered persuadable. The list does not include either of New Hampshire's Senators Shaheen or Hassan, even though Trump barely lost the state. I assume this is because both ladies have been written off as hopeless partisan rubber stamps.
Ooooh, a "March for Science" on April 22 in DC. Hey, I like science!
But at NR, Wesley J. Smith notes the
real game being played:
colonization, racism, immigration, native rights, sexism, ableism, queer-, trans-, intersex-phobia, & econ justice are scientific issues ✊🏾🌈— March for Science (@ScienceMarchDC) January 29, 2017
The march folks bill it as "nonpartisan", which means they'll accept anyone who meets their totalitarian purity test.
If you enter a single word into its search box, Google will often
produce a definition for you.
Derek Hunter at the Daily Caller thinks there just might be some funny
Redefines The Word ‘Fascism’ To Smear Conservatives, Protect Liberal Rioters"
Motives aside, here are the relevant bits of Google's definition (as I type):
an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.
Derek objects that the harbingers of fascist oppression (violence, speech supression, etc.) are coming mainly from the non-Right Side these days. Fine. But (for me) the more important question is: why are we still pretending the seating arrangements of the National Assembly in eighteenth-century France have anything illuminating or useful to say about modern politics?
I know, I'm as guilty as anyone.
And finally, Ian Miles Cheong of Heat Street tells us that
Dr. Seuss Rhymes are the Latest Form of Protest Against Donald
Trump". Specifically, adapting the Green Eggs and Ham
Mr. Cheong notes:
Ironically, at the end of Green Eggs and Ham, the book ends with the character liking what he didn’t like after he gave it a chance.
Also ironically, Dr. Seuss was a huge fan of rounding up racially suspicious folks and sending them to camps.