13:23 is a toughie, interpretation-wise:
23 An unplowed field produces food for the poor,
but injustice sweeps it away.
My best guess: the poor can—or could—live on food harvested from unowned property, but "injustice"—somehow—prevents them from doing that. Maybe, maybe not.
This leads me to check out alternate translations than our default NIV. How about King James?
23 Much food is in the tillage of the poor: but there is that is destroyed for want of judgment.
This seems to blame the poor themselves, maybe? Their silly lack of judgment destroys their means of sustenance?
The "Message" is always amusing, though:
23 Banks foreclose on the farms of the poor, or else the poor lose their shirts to crooked lawyers.
Ah. The Man always finds a way to screw the Little People.
The writer Tom Wolfe passed away, and there are a lot of words out
there about that. I enjoyed Kyle Smith's take on
Thirty years ago, B.T.W. (before Tom Wolfe), I was an aspiring postmodern novelist. An undergraduate in the Yale English department, I marinated in the wordplay of James Joyce. I steeped myself in Thomas Pynchon. I would write novels that would sell in the tens. On the side, I would deconstruct other people’s novels, locate the damning signifiers that were hidden deep within, undetected even by their authors. Then a friend gave me a stack of unwanted books from a class she had completed. One of them was The Right Stuff.
To this day, no book has ever hit me harder. The acuity of Wolfe’s social analysis, the depth of his reporting, and most of all the mad, exhilarating gallop of his prose style rerouted my mind, redirected my intentions. Wolfe’s impassioned admiration for the courage and ingenuity of test pilot Chuck Yeager and the Mercury space-program astronauts jarred all my ironic, postmodernist, Ivory Tower assumptions. I was a Mike Dukakis–loving liberal Democrat, but in the book’s jovial respect for what would later be known as red-state culture (it was Wolfe who popularized the phrase “good ol’ boy”) came the first low rumblings that I might someday become patriotic, maybe even conservative.
At Law and Liberty, John O. McGinnis hits on a theme we've
mentioned here, more than a few times:
Progressives Want to Revive Norms Against Blasphemy.
Why has progressivism changed its position on the role of open debate? First, progressivism is not as confident that the facts of the world will back up their policy prescriptions as they once were. In part, that is because their policy prescriptions have become more radical. The progressive view, for instance, was once that women should be able to go as far as their abilities and inclinations take them. Today for many progressives, there is something amiss with the world if we do not observe relatively equal proportions of men and women in physics departments at major universities. If you become less confident of the factual support for your ideas, you naturally want to hobble your opponents by fiat rather than reason.
Second, modern progressivism holds metaphysical beliefs, not unlike those of a religion, that are beyond factual dispute. No facts can be allowed to get in the way of whatever the diversity policies of the day mandate. Norms against blasphemy shut down debates about the God and His nature. Many modern progressives are opposed to religions in their traditional form, but modern progressivism is adopting the most traditional of religious moves—putting the sacred beyond question.
I'll be uncharitably ad hominem, probably a mistake: many progressives occupy lucrative "priesthood" positions in our nation's institutions that depend on those beliefs being unquestioned—and fully funded.
Or, as Mel Brooks explained in Blazing Saddles: "We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen!"
Occasionally a naysayer is allowed within the sanctum, however. For
example, Gerard Alexander in a NYT op-ed, noting:
You’re Not as Smart as You Think.
I know many liberals, and two of them really are my best friends. Liberals make good movies and television shows. Their idealism has been an inspiration for me and many others. Many liberals are very smart. But they are not as smart, or as persuasive, as they think.
And a backlash against liberals — a backlash that most liberals don’t seem to realize they’re causing — is going to get President Trump re-elected.
People often vote against things instead of voting for them: against ideas, candidates and parties. Democrats, like Republicans, appreciate this whenever they portray their opponents as negatively as possible. But members of political tribes seem to have trouble recognizing that they, too, can push people away and energize them to vote for the other side. Nowhere is this more on display today than in liberal control of the commanding heights of American culture.
To sum up: Liberals used to be better at disguising their contempt for their opponents.
At the Technology Liberation Front, Brent Skorup debunks the
outcome of (essentially) a
No, “83% of Americans” do not support the 2015 net neutrality regulations
Lawmakers frequently hear impressive-sounding stats about net neutrality like “83% of voters support keeping FCC’s net neutrality rules.” This 83% number (and similar “75% of Republicans support the rules”) is based on a survey from the Program for Public Consultation released in December 2017, right before the FCC voted to repeal the 2015 Internet regulations.
Brent notes that in order to get their positive results, the pollsters misrepresented the actual content of the "nearly 400-page" NetNeut regulations into a couple of misleading feelgood soundbites.
You might not expect an organization named
"The Center for Land Use Interpretation" would produce such an
interesting web document:
Divide: A Linear Portrait of the USA/Canada Border. No wait, I'm
not kidding! It is interesting, full of pictures, anecdotes,
trivia, and oddities. Following the border, starting from "Machais Seal Island, a 20-acre
treeless outcrop which is still claimed by both nations", all the
way to "Strait of Jaun [sic] de Fuca, into the Pacific Ocean, where it
dissolves completely into the sea."
Found via Granite Geek, which focuses, naturally enough on a Granite State question: Why are there two obelisks, really close to each other, marking the NH border with Canada? Said obelisks are up in Pittsburg. No spoilers here, but the answer may surprise you!
And I just want to quote something I hadn't noticed at
xkcd: the site's browser guidelines.
(In really tiny type.):
I think I'm going to steal that last bit…