Shaun Kenney

Those who know me know that few things will get my Irish temper up faster than the issue of defunding and de-coupling Planned Parenthood from the federal government:

Voices within the Republican Party have argued that we should not shut down the federal government over federal tax funding for Planned Parenthood.  That the juice isn’t worth the squeeze, that we always lose such fights, and that we (on principle?) should never use a federal government shutdown as a tactic to achieve legislative goals.

If only the Democrats believed likewise…

Folks, here’s my beef: if defunding Planned Parenthood — an organization that has killed 61 million babies and is currently serving as a cartel trafficking in baby body parts — isn’t the hill to die on, then what is?

Feel free to read it all over at Bearing Drift.

This a great article defining the Trump phenomenon (movement is perhaps too strong a word) that is refreshing old wounds between the conservatives and the populists:

At the risk of being called a giant elitist, I think about these cargo cults (and the Underpants Gnomes) as I watch the Trump phenomenon make its way across this fine country. Trump would be, I think one of the finest cult leaders the world has ever known. His energy is apparently limitless, he extols the virtues of himself tirelessly, and he never even acknowledges the merest hint of humility or personal limitations.

Jay Cost over at The Weekly Standard has more:

About 50 years ago, political scientist Philip Converse argued that ideology could be understood as issue restraint. In other words, somebody who accepts conservative principles about free markets is restrained from endorsing the kind of redistributive tax scheme that Bernie Sanders is promoting. By this standard, Trump has little if any ideology. For instance, he avers that he is for “free trade,” but also for making Mexico pay for a border wall, and he will slap a tariff on Mexico if it won’t.

Issues are not the reason to support Trump. Instead, Trump wants you to send him to Washington to do great deals for America.

Of course, those who put their money behind their convictions are overwhelmingly choosing Bush as their favorite, followed by Rubio before Trump comes in at barely 1 in 4.  Even Kasich comes within striking distance, which should tell you something.

So if you really care about the environment, go nuclear?

Based on numbers pulled by the research team from the experience of Sweden and France and scaled up to the globe, a best-case scenario for conversion to 100 percent nuclear power could enable the world to stop burning fossil fuels and start fissioning uranium for electricity within 34 years. Requirements for this shift of course would include expanded uranium mining and processing, a build-out of the electric grid as well as a commitment to develop and build fast reactors-nuclear technology that operates with faster neutrons and therefore can handle radioactive waste, such as plutonium, for fuel as well as create its own future fuel. “No other carbon-neutral electricity source has been expanded anywhere near as fast as nuclear,” Qvist says.

Fascinating.

Energy Fuels are currently the leading US producer of uranium and they have a strong belief that nuclear energy will see strong growth in the coming years. They are currently selling uranium stocks for those interested in investing, as well.

The French model, for instance, reprocesses the fuel until you have something about the size of your thumb. No need for massive water tanks or huge storage facilities in Nevada.

Of course… when we get to nuclear fusion…

Yes, ladies and gentlemen… 27 minutes from Mr. William Bartley and the year 1599.

Enjoy!

My good friend Mike Fletcher has some interesting observations regarding Facebook, not to mention its absolute and utter worthlessness:

Maybe it has changed the world. It’s made us all a lot more angry. We’re more polarized than we’ve ever been.

But when you post for your own pet cause, or religion, or weight loss miracle, you’re not changing minds. Neither am I.

More than likely, we’re just pissing people off. I’m not brilliant, no wait I am, but that’s not the point.

It wasn’t brilliance that made me see this. It was experience. I spent several years as a political blogger convinced that if I could just get people to see the truth, then they would believe as I do. It didn’t happen. And it’s not going to.

That’s why I don’t play that game any more. Never mind the fact that my working in the arts doesn’t necessarily mesh with my political background (oh, don’t pretend you don’t know my resume).

Truth be told, I’ve been tempted to give in to the same temptation and discussed this very topic with my consigliere.  Why bother adding to the cacophony of noise when, frankly, the entire conversation has devolved to Cass Sunstein’s prediction in Republic.com. Continue reading →

Of course, you deserve to be reading some items from the New York Times, right?

This gem comes from a review of Max Beerbohm, a man I have rarely encountered, but just might have to pick up his selected essays after all:

Each of these humans seems to have been guided by the principle articulated by Kingsley Amis: “If you can’t annoy somebody with what you write, I think there’s little point in writing.”

Nowadays we have many writers who can rise to the occasion when called upon and, like volunteer firefighters in reverse, burn a stupid thing to the ground. But we have far fewer essayists of the sort you can point in almost any direction and be certain they’d return merrily gnawing on the bones of the topic as if it were a tub of fried chicken.

The world could use more of these — not the vulgar sort — but just folks that can apply wit without sarcasm.

Then again, appreciation for the essayist is in vogue.  Montaigne the Proto-Blogger seems to be a lodestar of sorts for just the right kind of example, even if folks rarely if ever dedicate the time to sit and read at leisure anymore (which is a shame).

UPDATE:  Just in case you were looking for more writing advice and that sort of thing, Umberto Eco would like to pull you aside for a moment:

[Avoid] the exclamation point to emphasize a statement. This is not appropriate in a critical essay… It is allowed once or twice, if the purpose is to make the reader jump in his seat and call his attention to a vehement statement like, “Pay attention, never make this mistake!” But it is a good rule to speak softly. The effect will be stronger if you simply say important things.

Worth a read.

The lyrics are a bit trippy…

-Yes, a lady with pearly hair has come
Was I dreaming? Or maybe it was real.
Laaa laaa la la la laaa laaa la la la la laaa

…but no matter.

Andrei Rublev — which if you haven’t seen the film, you ought to.

One of the most things your humble writer faces from time to time is that there’s so much quality stuff out there: arts, culture, politics, and books.  Folks love to complain about the downfall of social media descending into cat pictures and Upworthy-style clickbait — and there’s some truth to that — but it sidesteps all of the really excellent stuff out there.  Truth be told, if you can push past the saccharine, there’s a lot of tremendous content that hearkens back to the blogosphere of 10 years ago, where arts, culture, politics, etc. truly reigned supreme.

Of course, my tastes vary from the eclectic to the sublime.  Politics just happens to be one of a many-sided intellectual palette, and though not all these things will interest everyone, I suspect that some of it might interest a few of you… and to that end, I’ll share.

Meet the 26-year-old who’s taking on Thomas Piketty’s ominous warnings about inequality (Washington Post):  Loyal readers will recall our previous conversation about Pinketty’s Capital and the discussion over r > g (rate of return on capital > economic growth) as an argument regarding income disparity affecting our ability to have a dialogue within a republican form of government.  Turns out, Pinketty was wrong… and the guy who flipped the card table was not only a 26 year old PhD candidate, but did it in the comments section of Marginal Revolution:

The comment blossomed into a near-unprecedented career opportunity for a student who just recently turned 26 years old, and who remains a year away from earning his doctoral degree. It will culminate on Friday morning at the Brookings Institution in Washington, where Rognlie will present a research paper before an often-cutthroat audience of all-star economists, including a Nobel Prize winner, Robert Solow, who will critique Rognlie’s analysis.

Organizers say it will almost certainly be the first paper at the prestigious Brookings Papers on Economic Activity that was commissioned based on a blog comment. It is also a rare honor for a graduate student to present a sole-authored paper there; a quick scan of Brookings records shows a similar appearance by the now-renowned economist Jeffrey Sachs when he was a doctoral student in 1979.

Fear not the comments section, folks.  Just try to use your real name — no one takes a pseudonym seriously. Continue reading →