Thursday morning quick hits

Victorian posy of pansiesI do not watch the Grammys, so I was unaware that the Grammy powers that be had edited the speech by Lorde, the teenage sensation from New Zealand who sang what I thought was a boring chant about the misery of life without bling. Having read what they edited, you can see that they did her a great favor. I would like to think that people would have been put off by her speech, rather then intrigued by it.

I often do not send traffic to a site with which I disagree. I will identify it so others can find it, but I won’t hyperlink. A professor has done much the same thing regarding people who support the Boycott Divest and Sanction movement against Israel. He is refusing to site as sources people who support that foul movement.

Conservatives who watch the Supreme Court have long identified something called the Greenhouse syndrome to explain why conservative justices kept getting more liberal. Linda Greenhouse was this supreme court reporter for the New York Times. Too often justices tried to shape their opinions to please Greenhouse, rather than the Constitution. As this article reveals, Greenhouse is both an ideologue and an ignoramus. The justices were really dumbing down to please her.

As is probably true for many people, I have been following the case of Amanda Knox and Raphael Sollecito who were convicted in Italy for murdering Knox’s roommate, Amanda Kercher. And as is probably the case for many Americans, I think the Italian justice system failed at every level. Ace does a superb job of summing up it’s myriad failures.

David Goldman, a.k.a. Spengler, thanks that an increasingly religious Israel is heading in the right direction. The Bible supports him. Whenever ancient Israel deviated from religion it was punished; when it found its way back, God rewarded it. Goldman, of course, doesn’t just cite the Bible. He actually has facts and analysis to explain why he thinks this is a good thing.

This is the first article I’ve seen that logically explains the Edward Snowden conundrum (i.e. hero or traitor?). Snowden stole vast amounts of data that is of interest only to America’s enemies, and his search was set up to catch that data. To the extent he revealed that America is spying on her own citizens, he seems to have done so as a cover.

And here is a funny one from The Onion. As Homer Simpson would say, “It’s funny because it’s true.”

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. says

    Spengler is weak on Obama and the Leftist alliance. Two all important topics for the Anglosphere at the moment.
     
    “for murdering knocks his roommate, ”
     
    Not sure what this sentence means. Also a its vs it’s issue below that line.

  2. says

    “ But through the myriad non-privacy related stories derived from Snowden documents, and the statements of US officials, we know that the vast bulk of the materials he stole had nothing to do with this.  Instead, they were related to intelligence operations against potential adversaries, and to US military operations and movements. – ”
     
    He doesn’t know anything of the sort. He was told this by sources the author cannot verify. And he expects the rest us to jump up and believe because what, he believes his authorities and the same should go for us? We already know what happens when people trust in their little authorities too much, by now.
     
    Without the ability to independently verify what “he gets told”, the author has no foundation upon which to tell the rest of us anything, including that “he knows”. He doesn’t know anything more at this point than what others want him to know.
     
    “Combine that with the fact that Snowden’s searches were deliberately far more expansive than would have been necessary to achieve his ostensible purpose of alerting Americans to purported threats to their privacy, the only reasonable conclusion is that Snowden’s real purpose was to inflict grave damage on the security of this country.  His country.  ”
     
    And his proof here is where? Because he was told by his officials? That might have sufficed for a decadent American population that just believed whatever claptrap their politicians and leaders told them, but we’re in the 21st century here. The internet age.

  3. Tara S says

    Lorde’s speech was… disturbing at best, but she’s apparently made statements to the effect that “Royals” was meant to lambast the idea of bling, not promote it.
     
    Also, that Onion article made me laugh out loud.

  4. says

    Unfortunately for the onion, racism means one thing to us but another thing to the Left. To us it means judging a person by the color of his skin or affiliation, rather than his character and deeds. To the Left, racism means badthought or thoughts that should not be allowed a livestock farm animal to think about.

Leave a Reply