I think that the latest William Bennett kerfuffle is a tempest in a teapot, but his response irritates me a little:
A thought experiment about public policy, on national radio, should not have received the condemnations it has. Anyone paying attention to this debate should be offended by those who have selectively quoted me, distorted my meaning, and taken out of context the dialogue I engaged in this week. Such distortions from ‘leaders’ of organizations and parties is a disgrace not only to the organizations and institutions they serve, but to the First Amendment.
Sorry, but this has nothing to do with the First Amendment. I get just as annoyed when people on the so-called right wrap themselves in the First Amendment as a rhetorical barrier against criticism as I do when people on the left do.
There is nothing in the First Amendment that protects anyone from having their speech criticized. Such criticism is itself protected by the First Amendment. All that the amendment says is that “Congress shall pass no law…” Unless there was a legislative move afoot today to outlaw Bill Bennett from putting his foot in his mouth of which I was previously unaware, I don’t know to what he’s referring here.
It just occurred to me that an iceberg placed in front of a hurricane could take the energy out of it. I just did a quick google, and came up with this guy, who thought it up ten years ago, but it’s not quantified in any way.
I don’t know how sensitive storms are to ocean surface temps, so you’d have to figure out how much you needed to lower the temperature, and over how wide an area, to see if it was in any way feasible. But I’d have to think that an iceberg in the tropics could do some pretty good cooling over a pretty broad area. Of course, getting it into position quickly could be a challenge. And around here, and in the Bahamas, the water is so shallow it would probably run aground.
When I read this story about a woman apparently killed on her motorcycle up in Sonoma County on the coast highway, I wondered how it happened, and if she might be alive today had she known about this.
Of course, she may also have been a good rider, and just encountered oncoming traffic in her lane, or a slick spot in the road. We may never know.
Is he the last Chief Justice the nation will ever have? He seems to be in good health, so I think that it’s possible that he’ll live for many decades, perhaps centuries.
Is he the last Chief Justice the nation will ever have? He seems to be in good health, so I think that it’s possible that he’ll live for many decades, perhaps centuries.
Is he the last Chief Justice the nation will ever have? He seems to be in good health, so I think that it’s possible that he’ll live for many decades, perhaps centuries.
We all recollect occasions in which a fellow took an action which resulted in his gain and our loss: we had to deal with a bandit. We also recollect cases in which a fellow took an action which resulted in his loss and our gain: we had to deal with a helpless person. We can recollect cases in which a fellow took an action by which both parties gained: he was intelligent. Such cases do indeed occur. But upon thoughtful reflection you must admit that these are not the events which punctuate most frequently our daily life. Our daily life is mostly, made of cases in which we lose money and/or time and/or energy and/or appetite, cheerfulness and good health because of the improbable action of some preposterous creature who has nothing to gain and indeed gains nothing from causing us embarrassment, difficulties or harm. Nobody knows, understands or can possibly explain why that preposterous creature does what he does. In fact there is no explanation – or better there is only one explanation: the person in question is stupid.