URLs du Jour


[Amazon Link]

  • Proverbs 15:28 is another Proverbialist Mad Lib, and works in his oral fixation as well:

    28 The heart of the righteous weighs its answers,
        but the mouth of the wicked gushes evil.

    As Horatio Caine might say: Proverbs has a vast amount of wisdom, but some of the verses are …

        ( •_•)>⌐■-■ 
    … half-vast.


    [Classic reference explained, if necessary, here. Thanks to Iowahawk for the graphics.]

  • Reader, did you remember to Spring Forward? Whether or not, you'll want to check out Slashdot's question: Are The Alternatives Even Worse Than Daylight Saving Time? Lots of links. Memorable paragraph:

    The article associates Daylight Saving Time with "a spike in heart attacks, increased numbers of work injuries, automobile accidents, suicides, and more." And in addition, it also blames DST for an increased use of gasoline and air conditioners -- adding that it will also "rob humanity of billions of hours of sleep like an evil spacetime vampire."

    "Other than that, though, it's great."

    Let me link (yet again) a classic Pun Salad Crackpot Proposal from 2013: The Right Number of Time Zones is Zero.

  • In this week's G-File, Jonah Goldberg writes a followup to the column (which appeared in USA Today) that speculated on The Wisdom of Youth. Or lack thereof. Sample:

    This is what I hate about all forms of identity politics. It’s an effort to get credit or authority based upon an accident of birth. The whole point of liberalism (the real kind) is the idea that people are supposed to be judged on the basis of their own merits, not as representatives of some class or category. Of course, one needn’t be absolutist about this. A little pride in your culture or ethnicity won’t do any harm. But reducing individuals simply to some abstract category is the very definition of bigotry.

    Also: the Progressive media cynically exploit these kids in order to advance the Progressive media's agenda.

  • My lefty Facebook friends take every opportunity to fearmonger about imagined "cuts" to entitlement programs. Like Veronique de Rugy at Reason, I want to tell them: don't worry, Fellow ElderlyPersonOnAFixedIncome: Uncle Sam Continues to Stick His Head in the Sand on Entitlements.

    Social Security and Medicare are the two biggest programs driving the growth of our debt. What's more, they provide benefits for senior Americans generally, without regard to need. It's time to change the way we think about these programs.

    It's difficult to overstate how much of our budget goes toward these programs. Numbers from the Congressional Budget Office show that in the past 10 years, 70 percent of real spending increases have gone to Social Security and Medicare. In fiscal 2017, the federal government spent $4 trillion. Of that, 40 percent—$1.5 trillion, or 8 percent of our gross domestic product—went to Social Security and Medicare. These two programs will consume $3 trillion in the next decade, and that doesn't include the interest charged on Uncle Sam's credit card.

    Ms. de Rugy cites an NR article from Brian Riedl, which is behind the paywall. Sad!

  • Probably not going to be a hit movie comparable to When Harry Met Sally, but the great Katherine Mangu-Ward relates, in the NYT When Smug Liberals Met Conservative Trolls.

    Modern American political discourse can seem disjointed to the point of absurdism. But the problem isn’t just filter bubbles, echo chambers or alternative facts. It’s tone: When the loudest voices on the left talk about people on the right as either beyond the pale or dupes of their betters, it is with an air of barely concealed smugness. Right-wingers, for their part, increasingly respond with a churlish “Oh, yeah? Hold my beer,” and then double down on whatever politically incorrect sentiment brought on the disdain in the first place.

    Sensible people—and I am apparently not one of them—will turn off both sides.

  • At the Federalist, David Harsanyi debunks a lefty meme: No, Government Isn’t ‘Banned’ From Studying Gun Violence. What's behind the assertion? Not much:

    In 1996, a few years after the Center for Disease Controls had funded a highly controversial study that has since embedded itself into the “scientific” case for gun control, Arkansas Republican Jay Dickey* added an amendment to a funding bill that dictated “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control” should be used to “advocate or promote gun control.” That same year, Congress also cut $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget, the amount it spent on gun control efforts. Bill Clinton signed it into law.

    Absolutely nothing in the amendment prohibits the CDC from studying “gun violence,” even if this narrowly focused topic tells us little. In response to this inconvenient fact, gun controllers will explain that while there isn’t an outright ban, the Dickey amendment has a “chilling” effect on the study of gun violence.

    Something to deploy the next time you see this nonsense on Facebook.