As someone who smoked cigarettes for a number of years, I can attest that cigarettes are not a positive factor and that nicotine is not a good thing.
At Psychology Today Blogs, Ira Hyman explores what he refers to as the “The Cognitive Illusion of Constitutional Originalism.” Here’s a tiny little bit of his article (emphasis added):
Anyone who claims to be a Constitutional originalist is simply engaged in the process of selecting historical writings consistent with their own views. They reinterpret those writings based on their current goals and attitudes. The risk is that they do not acknowledge the way in which their goals and attitudes lead to selective searches, confirmation biases, and reinterpretations of historical documents.
I commend his article to your attention as a valuable and timely–especially timely–read.
If you are a mystery buff, as I am, you might want to check these out:
They are anthologies of short stories, mostly from the late Victorian and Edwardian eras, by authors contemporaneous with Arthur Conan Doyle. Some of the stories are, shall we say, better than others. Also, do not be surprised when some of the stories perpetuate the prejudices of their times (I’m thinking specifically of “The Affair of the Tortoise,” chapter 17 of The Rivals of Sherlock Holmes, Vol. 1).
Me, I’m currently (re-)reading the first Ellery Queen novel, The Roman Hat Mystery. I realize on rereading it what I did not remember from my first reading lo! those many years ago! It’s actually rather slow-moving and pedantic (but, then, so am I). I think the secret of its success, beyond the well-crafted mystery (and it is a well-crafted mystery) is the characterization, particularly the relationship between Ellery and his father, Inspector Queen.
In a way, that fits a theory of mine. I’ve long thought that the secret of a successful television series is the characters and their relationship. If the series pulls that off, fans will overlook the occasional lousy episode, because they like the characters. But I digress.
Badtux has a theory about the Supreme Court’s radical disregard of precedent in the two big decisions rendered last week.
Frankly, I don’t think that much planning went into those decisions. I think the
conservatives right-wing radicals on the Court were taking advantage of opportunities as they came along. But, as regard the long-term results, I think that Badtux may well be onto something.
We are a failing state.
Twits who rain on the parade.
Yes, indeedy-do. “social” media does contribute to dis coarse discourse, of coarse it does.
F. T. Rea points fingers. A snippet:
Moreover, two groups, in particular, must bear much of the responsibility for Trump’s 2016 win and thus today’s decision that struck down Roe vs. Wade: 1. Republicans who were semi-revolted by Trump. Still, by habit, just couldn’t vote for a Democrat. 2. Democrats, who, because they were bored with politics and/or they found Clinton too annoying, simply didn’t vote, again.
Methinks he has a point.
The lesser of two evils is always preferable to the evil of two lessers.
Sam and Emma talk with a caller, an architect, who discusses how architects feel about hardening schools from mass shootings.
At AL.com, Frances Coleman, who believes that abortion is wrong, struggles with why she finds the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade disturbing. It’s a powerful article worth your while. Here’s a bit (emphasis added):
This isn’t about morality. It’s about the power of the state to make you do things. Morality? There are a lot of things that are immoral, yet legal, just as there are a lot of things that are moral, yet illegal.
It may be immoral to gamble away your paycheck, but it’s not illegal. And it is, in my and many others’ view, immoral to strap a person to a gurney and kill him, but it’s perfectly legal.
There was a time when the members of the U.S. Supreme Court seemed above partisan politics. But that’s only a memory now, as this most recent decision clearly shows.
On a related issue, Badtux reports that one of his friends is fed up with the purists, those self-proclaimed “progressives” who refuse to vote if they don’t find a candidate perfect in every way. Here’s a snippet from that article: