First Looks category archive

Shaun Mullen informs me that this site has been flagged by Google as having some bad stuff. Google says it “has been reported” as having links that lead to bad places. I have been unable to duplicate the problem on any of my machines, but I was able to do so on my friend’s Win10 computer.

I will be troubleshooting this afternoon, so expect weirdness.

Addendum:

I took a look at the site from the backroom and nothing untoward leapt out at me. Then I discovered my most excellent hosting provider offers a for-a-fee clean-up service. I signed up for it. There will be no further activity here until they are done.

I could play golf. That would be a much more expensive hobby.

Addendum Again:

Progress is being made.

Addendum-a-go-go:

My hosting provider found and cleaned or deleted a number of suspicious files and added some security measures. They inform me that it may take a while for Google to respond to the request to recheck the site. So I’m just going to sit tight for a while.

So far, Google is the only outfit that has flagged the site.

Off to drink liberally.

When fellowship is needed, join us . . . .

When: Thursday, January 11, 6 p.

Where:
Croc’s 19 Street Bistro
620 19th Street (Map)

More here.

Will Bunch asks, “In 2018, who will have the courage to push the radical idea of world peace?” Follow the link for his answer.

Via Job’s Anger.

In case you haven’t noticed, I have added a link to the “Old Time Radio” item on the sidebar, over there ——>, to the “Old Radio Programs” website.

It has wonderful content and I commend it to your attention.

If you have not done so, I highly recommend that you read Lena Horne’s autobiography.

Our next number is dedicated to all the boys and girls at Fox News.

In The Roanoke Times, James J. Hentz tries to make sense of some of Chief Justice Roberts’s statements during the oral presentations of the pending suit against gerrymandering and find himself unable to do so. Here’s a bit of his article:

Chief Justice Roberts stated during oral presentations on the gerrymandering case, Gill v. Whitford : “The intelligent man on the street” will deduce that, if the Supreme Court rules with Democrats in a gerrymandering case, “it must be because the Supreme Court preferred the Democrats over the Republicans. .?.?. And that is going to cause very serious harm to the status and integrity of the decisions of this court in the eyes of the country.”

First, for a usually elegant and exceptionally bright jurist this is a confusing statement. If the court in ruling in favor of the Democrats signals a preference for them, would not ruling the other way signal a preference for the Republicans?” He seems to be saying the latter is fine. His statement shows how much creeping partisanship influences the court. Second, how is this statement consistent with a strict constructivist interpretation? I suspect Madison, no friend of political parties, is turning over in his grave.

Field pounds the grovel.