For all of my Christian friends who will be voting on this amendment today, defining marriage as one man and one woman, a couple of verses.

Genesis 2:24 (NIV) – That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

Proverbs 14:34 (NIV) – Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin condemns any people.

Righteousness and sinfulness are indeed both personal and corporate. Please consider this.

Good morning.

1. Yep, you need to hold your line, apparently Mr Ferrari has forgotten that elementary point.
2. Tolerance and the much abused “Black Studies”.
3. Mr Krugman (and others) often goes off against EU austerity. Can you spot it? I guess austerity means something besides a cut in spending.
4. A book recommended.
5. A million years of global warming didn’t kill the dinosaurs, why fear a few tens of decades? In fact, this gives support to the climate warm = good hypothesis.
6. Of Parliament and separation.
7. Something, I gather, the pro-choice movement has nothing bad to say about.
8. A tree falls in the forest, see no noise.
9. One view on gay marriage.
10. Checking some results. What do you think the outcome will be?
11. Equine domestication and the Cossack.
12. He “got a few things right” (Mr Obama that is) … starts as damning with faint praise and goes downhill fast when the fact checking begins. Perhaps the article “a”, was unnecessary.

For the first time since Mitterrand did it in 1981, the French have elected a  Socialist President, Francois Hollande. But the French, based on some observations I’ve seen, didn’t turn left so much as it didn’t turn right. Sarkozy, a conservative by label, had become something of a "big-government conservative", meaning that, likely, the French didn’t see much difference between him and the Socialists.

There’s a lesson here for American Republicans.

The fiscal measures that France had been working on are now likely going away.  Hollande is quoted as saying, ""Europe is watching us, austerity can no longer be the only option." Socialism, which exists to "spread the wealth around", needs more and more money and more and more vote buying social spending to keep its promises.

Let’s not forget that, upset at their involvement in Iraq, Spaniards voted in Socialists who promised to get them out of the war. They did, but the jihadists still bombed Madrid. And after seeing what the Socialists did to their finances, the voted them out in a crushing defeat 2 terms later.

There’s a lesson there for the French, and Europe in general.

Is anybody listening? It will be too late for the French if they go the way of Greece. Who will bail them out? Germany, again? Us? This will not go well.

Wheee! A new week! (ahem uhm erhm) Good morning.

1. I concur … and (clickthrough) a little meta-backstory.
2. Familial ties, social or genetic.
3. Of property values and the entrepreneur.
4. 400!? That’s a lot.
5. Some definitions of racism. I still like mine, “it is racist to use race as a criterion where it isn’t clearly warranted.” And yes, selecting for college admissions based on race is racist.
6. Automation and the legal office.
7. Military training and a sim-city variant.
8. Hayekian road to serfdom in a modern context.
9. Yet another Julia.
10. I found this more humorous than perhaps it warranted.
11. A book noted.

"The nation’s Social Security and Medicare programs are sliding closer to insolvency, the federal government warned Monday in a new report underscoring the fiscal challenges facing the two mammoth retirement programs as baby boomers begin to retire." (And some think that making Medicare required for everyone is the solution. Only in Washington is failing on an even larger scale considered success.)

FALSANI:
What is sin?
OBAMA:
Being out of alignment with my values.
FALSANI:
What happens if you have sin in your life?
OBAMA:
I think it’s the same thing as the question about heaven. In the same way that if I’m true to myself and my faith that that is its own reward, when I’m not true to it, it’s its own punishment.
(What brand of Christianity does this represent?  Honestly, I have no idea. Read the whole interview.)

“Nice work, occupiers,” tweeted Jeremy Tooker, owner of the popular Four Barrel Coffee. “You made me leave my sick kid at home to go clean paint bombs off my windows. That’ll show Wall Street, fellas.” (More May Day Occupy Wall Street madness at Yourish.com.)

"For activists and Christians opposed to the so-called Israeli occupation, two key votes by the United Methodists will certainly serve as a discouragement. On Wed., May 2, the denomination twice voted to reject resolutions that called for a divestment from companies accused of assisting Israel in the ongoing dispute over Middle Eastern lands." (The UMC cares for both the Jews and the Palestinians, and won’t blame one side for violence from both. Good for them.) (Oh, and on May 1st, "A Qassam rocket was fired from the Gaza Strip and exploded in an open area in Ashkelon Coast Regional Council.")

And finally, Economics 101, from Chuck Asay. (Click for a larger version.)

Oooh, goody. A chance to link more stuff, make comments, and be misinterpreted.

1. A few comments here on bikes on roads might work. Uhm, I have been stopped by a cop riding a bike, in my case, because he felt “stopping” by doing a track stand (the bike stopped … but I didn’t “put my foot down”, which apparently for the cop means I’ve actually stopped). I’ll add that bike trails along side roads might be nice, but there are two problems, I think when they cross roads they are less, not more safe in that the cars/bikes aren’t really as cognizant of the other’s presence at intersections because they are on separated on the main path and second, lots of roadies are traveling a whole lot further than that short section of bike path. I used to take an 80 mile ride up to my mother-in-laws. Several sections of the path paralleled bike paths for about 2-3 miles of the whole trip. While that path might have made sense for the subdivision along side it, not so much for me.
2. Wheaton stands with the Roman Catholics.
3. Liberals like to point out how much more multiculturally senstive and aware and open they are. It just ain’t so, just observe these two leading liberal public intellectuals.
4. Courage recognized.
5. I think if you back that question up a bit you’ll find the “what constitutes healthy” a thorny enough question in and of itself without qualifying it.
6. While we’re in the business of thorny definitions, how about defining manufacturing.
7. The wonders of Obamacare and that whole “find out what’s in the law after you pass it”.
8. So, go ahead, follow Ms Warren’s example and check the “African American” section any application or employment form. And while your at it, check the “Cheerful” spot in the sexuality section.
9. Admission of guilt a bit?
10. Full assault mode. Attack attack attack!!!
11. Of economic opportunity and height.
12. Well, don’t worry, “reset” didn’t mean anything to anyone not in Russia either.
13. Well, no. I don’t think it is ever correct to hire a less qualified candidate. Who would? Now, I think the left would tell you that aff/action is to have preferences between equally qualified candidates. But, when they tell you that, alas, they are lying.

Good morning.

1. Over four years late … Obama background begins to be investigated.
2. Politics 101: How not to spin.
3. OK. I get it you didn’t like the paper (linked a few days ago). But, geesh, when criticizing a paper isn’t it bad form to use wrong/bad examples, i.e., house construction is not “bloated” because rents are going up … except why might rents go up? Could there be reasons other than a underultilization of construction resources? Perhaps because people aren’t buying because (with good reason) don’t trust property values to be stable yet? I’m no economist but that argument was just plain dumb.
4. Simple analysis of musical forms.
5. My first thought after seeing this is, well, Biden is worse … what ya complain’n about?
6. A political commentator whose never heard of Sarbanes Oxley apparently. Actually, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. You don’t have to scratch hard at all to find anti-business in the beltway.
7. Not enough information and cheap puzzles.
8. Transliteration vs translation and maps.
9. Tort and adultery.
10. Hack spit. SAY WHAT? Let’s see, a policy success for the US, China threatens a man’s wife, he leaves the protection of the US embassy … and that somehow somewhere is a policy success?
11. Tripos (whatever that is) entertainment continues.
12. A good question, what does it take to get a higher rating?
13. What they don’t tell you is high reps (20+) to failure is amazingly painful compared to 4-10 rep to failure weights.
14. Atheists, believers and damned lies akin to statistics.

Good morning.

1. Of revenge and justice. Is motive the only difference?
2. Loyalty Day? Where is the liberal outrage? Where? Hmmm? Let’s see, what if Mr Bush had suggested that?
3. A better way to remember May 1. More links here.
4. More grist for the wind farm/climate discussion.
5. A thought experiment on truth telling.
6. Anti-semitism in Norway.
7. Huh? Insanity on the left coast.
8. Rational huh? Evidence to the contrary abounds.
9. Obama’s politicization of his assassination of OBL noted. The left can explain the crucial difference between “not moving heaven and earth” and “if we have a shot we’ll take it”. Seems like they were on the same page.
10. People densities on the planet projected in space.
11. Nuptials of a different sort.
12. Coolness, noted as no biggie by the left. An essential feature of coolness it seems to me is that coolness is a raising of style and aesthetic over substance. If you think that’s not important … perhaps you also believe that.

North Carolina will be voting on an amendment to the state constitution that will define marriage as one man and one woman. It’s too bad that something so engrained in cultures worldwide must now have its obvious definition written into the overarching legal document for states, but since there are those that now wish to redefine it legally, it’s something that must be done.

In Georgia, we saw how, even though there were already laws against same-sex marriage, the same-sex marriage proponents sought to get around this by using the courts to declare the law unconstitutional. To preempt that here, a constitutional amendment was proposed and passed. Now North Carolina is doing the same thing, but those against the amendment are arguing…well, not arguing, really, just casting aspersions. Mark Duffy, writing for Buzzfeed says this:

The state already doesn’t "recognize" same-sex unions. That apparently isn’t a strong enough statement for North Carolina lawmakers.

This is not about statements or posturing. It’s because those promoting same-sex marriage have changed the battlefield from the legislature to the courts. And each time they get met on that battlefield, they whine about it and make assumptions about their opponents. These are not the actions of people appealing to your mind or reason, but to your emotions and, ironically, to hate of those they disagree with.

This is further exhibited by the commenters on the page. I noted the legal reasoning that the NC lawmakers might have, paralleling it with what I had seen here, and was immediately accused of deliberately twisting the facts. Except that the facts are historically verifiable. Nothing was twisted. Check out the comment thread. A very eye-opening read.

Good morning

1. Home brew, geek style.
2. What if not food, then grades?
3. It always comes back to maths.
4. I thought the update humorous.
5. Coming to the Holy Mountain.
6. So. How do we get there?
7. Coercion.
8. Higher education and a point made contra Mr Krugman.
9. Why they rape.
10. Swimming and a race.
11. An economic indicator.
12. Not if, when?
13. Head. Firmly in sand.
14. Get thee to the range.
15. Apropos the recession.

This is just Human Nature 101, but too many folks just don’t understand that.

Apparently, many students don’t like the idea of redistribution – but, only when it applies to their grades. Redistribution of their GPAs (grade point averages) to poorer students, they say, is unfair. But, those with lower grades don’t seem to mind benefiting from the hard work of their “greedy” high-achieving classmates.

Young America’s Foundation’s fourth annual GPA Redistribution Petition and Video Contest has produced yet another stellar student entry, this time from Carthage College. This year, the national public policy debate has focused on "fairness" through taxing the wealthy in an attempt to redistribute wealth. Many young people support this socialistic policy.

Yet, when students at Carthage where asked if they would be willing to sign a petition to redistribute GPA points from the top 10% to the rest of the college, most of them said NO. One student said, "No, because I worked hard for my grades!"

Another said, "At Carthage, each student has an equal opportunity to get the GPA they desire." And another, "I don’t want my GPA being taken away from me if I had an ‘A’."

When the petitioners told students that oftentimes outside factors leave students at an unfair disadvantage, a student said, "No. I’m low-income and a minority, and I have a fairly decent GPA, so…"

Fittingly, some of those who are not in the upper 10% welcomed the free points. "Why not? I’m down," said one student with a low GPA  (eagerly signing the petition), but then the student’s friend standing next to him said, "It takes away from people working hard… and obviously it’s paid off with their higher GPA." Later in the conversation, when the first student told his friend to sign the petition, the friend responded, "How about trying harder for a semester?"

I wonder if these students will understand how this applies to their vote in November.

Here’s the video.

Good morning.

1. Let’s see, if a few percent change in a “part-per-million” gas can change climate can sucking many megawatts out of air movement and changing wind patterns change it? Hmm.
2. World War II and an obit.
3. The use of a second language, use it to consider the pros and cons of your nuptials?
4. This blog series is a lot of fun. Here’s part 1, part2, and part 3.
5. Queen Tamar.
6. Now that the President has decided to hype is “Obama slaying” in the partisan election campaign … details come out that aren’t exactly helpful to his hype.
7. Air vs air and air vs mud.
8. Ms Warren and  on again/off again minority status.
9. Beef, birth, and micro-economics.
10. Deft.
11. An insight into why the “world building” in Hunger Games was scant. (hint: it wasn’t the point)
12. Sleep (deprivation) and perception.

The breakfast burrito at Fantastic Cafe, in El Segundo, CA.

Near LAX, and near the ocean, Fantastic Cafe offers up a great breakfast burrito for a very reasonable price. I asked for the bacon version and was pleased to find out that the standard breakfast burrito composition here is to combin bacon, sausage, and ham! Yowser! Also, lots of potatoes and cheese (and, as you can see, it’s a healthy proportion). Pico de Gallo, and house green hot sauce, on the side.

Enjoy!

– image © 2012 AR Lopez

That’s what Byron York thinks is the job of the Obama administration’s solicitor general, Donald Verrilli. First it was ObamaCare, now it’s the Arizona illegal immigrant laws. John Hinderaker notes some of the disconnects that Mr. Verrilli is desperately trying to connect.

Justice Sotomayor was commenting here on an extraordinary aspect of the Obama administration’s position, to the effect that it is OK if individual Arizona law enforcement officers decide to cooperate with federal immigration authorities, but if the state directs them all to cooperate, it is somehow unconstitutional. The Obama administration literally argued that for a state to engage in “systematic cooperation” with the federal government on immigration is unlawful. We can’t blame Mr. Verrilli for his inability to sell that bizarre argument. We do blame Barack Obama and Eric Holder for trying to assert it.

Of course, what is going on here is that the Obama administration doesn’t want to enforce the immigration laws that Congress has enacted. The essence of its position in the Arizona case is that the federal government has the right to decide not to enforce the law, and if it so decides, then no state has the power, under the Constitution, to do anything that would tend to enforce those federal laws. So if the Obama administration decides that it will gain political advantage by ignoring federal laws against illegal immigration, states like Arizona just have to take the consequences without complaining.

Mr. Verrilli has to twist himself in knots to try to defend the indefensible; a government that chooses which laws to enforce and which to ignore, and which want to force states to tow their particular line. The states will have none of that, and this case will determine whether the federal government can, indeed, actually legislate by ignoring laws it doesn’t like.

Thursday … and finally back home.

1. ‘Cause profiling is just WRONG!
2. Black. (me too)
3. 21st century perceptions of the possible and Ezekiel.
4. The short answer “no”, the long answer “it’s complicated”, the truth … well, he could kill it if he wanted to apparently he doesn’t so that “short answer = no” has a slight malfunction.
5. The zero bound and the bank.
6. A polite protest.
7. Acronym vs Kipling. I’ll go with the latter.
8. Strong women don’t need muscles or guns.
9. More background on Mr Zimmerman for the Zimmerman/Martin kerfuffle discussions.
10. So, true or not? Did you see a better short video segment yesterday?
11. An interesting point, the legal arguments are entirely disconnected from the non-legal ones.
12. I think it’s the meta-ethical capture of the Left by Consequentialism.
13. And when you add the high cost of tax collection … yikes.

Well, that should do for today. Have a good one y’all!