Archive for February 23rd, 2012

Things Heard: e209v3n4

OK. I’m back in town for a bit.

  1. Ockham’s axe.
  2. The left figuring (slowly) out the big problem with Obamacare, the whole insertion of more politics into healthcare bodes well for nobody. But … I’m guess the moral to that story is lost on Mr Schraub.
  3. And to follow on the above, the problem with inserting more politics into schools.
  4. 5 (?!) figure debt? Not 6?
  5. film list. So, what’s missing?
  6. A serious question for the liberal arts educated crowd. Why is that book important?
  7. Uhm, “flatter” can mean a lot of things, a smaller (or zero) second derivative is a common meaning for the term. It doesn’t necessarily mean the first derivative is zero.
  8. A “new” family of amphibians.
  9. Party, Mr Krugman, and welfare receipt.
  10. Medical (academic?) ethics.
  11. It seems to me austerity/non-austerity of government and its impact on economy is a symptom of mistake of letting the government get way to big.
  12. Good advice for Lent.
  13. Seasons.
  14. Book surgery.

Links for Thursday, 23 February 2012

Have you heard of the MEDEVAC issue with the Army?
Does it make sense to essentially paint a target on medic helicopters evacuating wounded military personnel from the battlefield? Michael Yon has written on it, and FoxNews now has a piece.


Michael Yon on Britches for the Troops


Victoria’s Secret Model gives it all up because of her faith?
Original HT to Joe Carter. From the CBS story,

After reaching the pinnacle of her career, a Victoria’s Secret model says she recently quit the runway because she wants to be a more positive role model for young girls and because baring so much skin conflicted with her Christian beliefs.

It took time for her to figure this out? Color me just a tad skeptical of this story and/or the circumstances.


Alcohol, high-speed crash, 3 Marines dead
Perhaps we should be more concerned with anti-driving laws than with anti-gun laws?


Has the U.S. Constitution seen better days?
From the New York Times,

The United States Constitution is terse and old, and it guarantees relatively few rights. The commitment of some members of the Supreme Court to interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning in the 18th century may send the signal that it is of little current use to, say, a new African nation. And the Constitution’s waning influence may be part of a general decline in American power and prestige.

In an interview, Professor Law identified a central reason for the trend: the availability of newer, sexier and more powerful operating systems in the constitutional marketplace. “Nobody wants to copy Windows 3.1,” he said.

In a television interview during a visit to Egypt last week, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court seemed to agree. “I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,” she said. She recommended, instead, the South African Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the European Convention on Human Rights.

Didn’t CS Lewis refer to this type of thinking as chronological snobbery?


Uh-Oh. This election cycle might get even nastier