Wednesday, February 03, 2010

Wednesday morning too-lazy-to-work-out tab dump 

I'll be off to the airport in an hour for a couple of days in Arizona (keep your jealousy in check -- it is raining there), and instead will use this precious time to avoid folding the heap of clean laundry on my bed and deliver unto you my tabs.

What is the First Amendment for? An interesting an accessible discussion of the philosophical differences that divided the Supreme Court in the Citizen's Union case, and why those differences cannot be resolved. Are you consequentialist or deontological? I know where I stand.

Poor Harry Reid. His colleagues -- this time the president -- keep mocking people who go to Las Vegas, as if it were déclassé or something. (This business of bashing Las Vegas goes back to last winter, when politicians on both sides of the aisle went after Wells Fargo for having a sales meeting there. Not only was that inherently silly, but publicity shy banks pulled all the financial conferences -- of which there had been several a year in Vegas -- to New York at substantially higher cost, all to avoid the ridicule of politicians.)

Sobering "first principles" that influence the transition to new sources of energy.

Cool, a USB device for your computer that senses when you are trashing your posture from long hours of blogging, or "working," over your keyboard.

From the Hoover Institute, "How China Won and Russia Lost." I have not read it, but it looks very interesting.

Mark Steyn is so goddamned reckless. Doesn't he know that his writing could kill literally everybody?

When you think of Iraq, if by some chance you have occasion to do that, remember Churchill. One must always consider the danger of inaction, and whether that might well have been even higher.

Sarah Palin wants Rahm Emanual fired for dropping F-bombs, or maybe just generally being mean to people. It is certainly true that righties, at least of the non-military variety, often look askance at the dropping of the F-bomb, especially in the presence of da womens. I will confess that while we rarely drop the F-bomb here on TigerHawk, we (meaning I) use them in oral communication all the farookin' time. Too much, probably. Guess that makes me a liberal.

Off to Phoenix. More later, muse and time willing.


By Blogger Brent Buckner, at Wed Feb 03, 09:13:00 AM:

Or maybe Palin was objecting to Emanual's use of the word "retarded".  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wed Feb 03, 09:14:00 AM:

In defense of Sarah, I don't think her problem was with the F-bomb. I think it was with the general sense of wheather "F-ing Retard" belongs in civilized debate over important issues. Further, do you remember the outrage when Cheney uttered F-ing a-hole outside the senate? Where is the outrage over Rahm's comments?

I, too, often (too often?) use the F - but understand when it is appropriate and when it is not. Rahm seems to lack this internal gate keeper, doesn't care, or is just an F-ing Retard. You decide  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wed Feb 03, 09:23:00 AM:

I can't believe you're not commenting on the semi-serious kerfuffle in the making between Paul Ryan, president-in-waiting, and the Democrats over health care, taxes, social security, medicare and medicaid. Anything not covered? Anyway, Congressman Ryan has re-introduced his Roadmap for America plan and President Obama, Peter Orszag and Ezra Klein have all pounced on it. Ryan responds disarmingly today.

This is right up your alley, and I'd be interested in your take. The Democrats will obviously try to turn the serious proposals Ryan is making into soundbite criticisms of the GOP, and Orszag and Klein (particularly Klein) give you the best early take on that strategy, but Ryan seems to be doing well in his responses.  

By Anonymous Darth Venomous, at Wed Feb 03, 09:37:00 AM:

Sarah Palin wants Rahm Emanual fired for dropping F-bombs

She wouldn't like a Venomous Administration, then. My regime would be chock full of 'em.

Primarily aimed at Demoscum.  

By Blogger Don Cox, at Wed Feb 03, 10:50:00 AM:

That "first principles" article is good. I cannot, personally, see any long-term alternative to nuclear power, preferably using fusion.

In the short term, wind power can be quite helpful as a top-up, for windy countries. Likewise, geothermal works well in places such as Iceland.

What we must do is stop paying vast sums to the Arabs and Iranians.  

By Anonymous SouthernRoots, at Wed Feb 03, 10:57:00 AM:

Dad was Navy. He could cuss with the best, but he was also an amateur radio operator and he never cussed on the air.

He had the ability to turn it off and on depending on who he was with and what the discussion was.

Rahm apparently lacks this ability.  

By Anonymous Mr. Ed, at Wed Feb 03, 12:08:00 PM:

I don't think getting rid of Rahm was the issue. Not a Machiavellian moment. Rather, there is a gut level sense of the need to stand up for and protect those who haven't been dealt a full house in life. It's more like, "Hey buddy, you want to pick on someone?"

But really, it just amazes me how that woman can give birth to a national conversation at will, and when all the media hates her.


By Anonymous Anonymous, at Wed Feb 03, 12:56:00 PM:

Deontological. As Fish describes it, the consequentialist perspective seems to be entirely based on an Orwellian fallacy, as in "we must restrict free speech in order to preserve it". Great read though; thanks. I don't read the NYT, so I'm glad someone does and points out the good stuff.  

By Anonymous feeblemind, at Wed Feb 03, 02:27:00 PM:

Should Rahm be fired for using the dreaded F--- word? Might make for an interesting TH poll question.  

By Blogger Bomber Girl, at Wed Feb 03, 08:22:00 PM:

Good word choice on "first principles", sobering indeed.  

By Blogger Gary Rosen, at Thu Feb 04, 02:32:00 AM:

Bomber Girl: Prof. Smil's fine article simply elaborates on what is well-known - that oil is an incredibly concentrated and accessible source of energy. If it were easy to replace with solar, wind and other forms of "green" energy it would have been done long ago, as it has with hydroelectric in those places where it makes economic sense.  

By Blogger Bomber Girl, at Thu Feb 04, 07:27:00 AM:

True enough, Gary. My reaction was more to the thought that the one seemingly viable solution is nuclear power, in spite of the limits noted in the article, yet we do not appear to have the investment or political capital in place to move forward here in any meaningful way. Mind you, I have seen "the best and the worst" of nuclear power, having lived in France for quite a few years....but also living in Italy when Chernobyl "happened". It seemed awfully close. I'd be curious if you think nuclear can happen in the U.S. because otherwise the oil bind and all its geopolitical implications are with us for a long, long time.  

By Blogger Gary Rosen, at Fri Feb 05, 03:06:00 AM:

I think nuclear *can* hapen in the US because I've heard that even some environmentalists (certainly not all) are coming around to the view that we should use it. I'm not sure that it will happen, or that it would completely eliminate the "oil bind" though it would undoubtedly help.  

Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?