Just when you think you have plumbed the darkest depths of the nation’s moral decline, someone comes up with something like this. I weep for my country.

Well, I’m not sure that it’s really unethical to not break up the pieces, but it certainly seems to miss the point, unless your only goal is simply to complete the puzzle as quickly as possible. And I’ve never seen a puzzle that was really worth the end result. With a jigsaw puzzle, isn’t the journey the destination?

Ilya Somin writes about the clash of values between those of us who want to live, and those who want us to die. And no, I’m not referring to Islamists.

A debate, that I’ve only skimmed, but it looks interesting.

…that atheists and Christians can, and must agree on. From, of all places, Cracked.

[Via emailer Eric Akawie]

Ron Bailey doesn’t think so. Neither do I. And I sure hope we don’t.

I’ve noticed this kind of “argument” a lot with people who want to hold back true progress (as opposed to the “progress” proposed by many “progressives”):

So what about the social consequences of radically longer and healthier lives? In that regard, Diana Schaub in her reaction essay raises many questions for reflection about those consequences, but curiously she fails to actually reflect on them. Schaub isn

In both science, and journalism.

The notion that journalists are, or should be, or can be “objective” is perhaps the profession’s most fatal conceit. As Virginia Postrel says, what’s important is to be fair, something that they often don’t even attempt, as demonstrated by CNN and its performance in the debates.