Open Thread

Terrific piece by the Weekly Standard on the one actually politically-motivated shooting in recent memory -- but one unremarked upon by the media, because who cares if a conservative is shot?

Kathleen Parker asserted that Hillary Clinton would make a great president just because she is a woman. When asked why that should be the case -- isn't her selling point that she's as tough as a man, or something? -- Parker splutters. Poor gal hadn't thought about it quite enough.

Then Allah returns to much the same subject as "the conservative-leaning columnist" Parker continues to say how super-awesome it would be to have a woman president, just because, that's why.

Apart from issuing the standard bromides about Girl Power, Hillary...

...[has] a great resume. That’s the case for Hillary, world savior, such as it is. What you’re seeing in columns like this, and in the sort of messianism that greeted O in 2008, is identity not only as a substitute for major career achievements but as something actually superior to them. We don’t need someone with a track record of significant civic, business, or military accomplishments; we need someone who, by virtue of the historic nature of their candidacy and their own iconic persona, will somehow save the world purely by attaining power. It was unconvincing five years ago. It’s less convincing now.

Indeed. Forsooth.

What does forsooth even mean? I don't know.

Oh okay it sort of does completely work there. Okay that's a useful word.

And speaking of black holes of failure, this New York Times piece on an intense debate about the nature of black holes is very interesting. Apparently a lot of people now think Einstein was wrong on a fundamental level about the nature of gravity. I can't say in what way, as I'm not done with it yet, but so far it seems really neat.

(Actually, now that I read more of it, it's one of those typical NYT science pieces which is long on Hype and Excitement! words, while providing little actual illumination; however, the subject itself seems adequately compelling to justify reading up on it elsewhere.

Like this paper -- but I have a feeling that is really for the Advanced Class. Update: It's for the Very Advanced Class. I should also retract my knocking of the Times piece for not providing much illumination: In fact, this seems pretty much beyond the ken of all but top-level physicists.

Any physicists here want to explain this to us non-Mathletes? Maybe in a post?)

Via @instapundit

posted by Ace at 08:55 PM

| Access Comments