Posted by richard on January 25th, 2012
http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2012/01/25/imagining-the-tenth-dimension/ http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/114832 http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2012/01/30/120130crat_atlarge_gopnik?currentPage=all# http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2010/10/22/obsolete-occupations-documentaries/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=has-peak-oil-already-happened http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2011/12/14/how-to-read-a-book-marginalia/ http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/pete-enns-biologos-and-adam-and-eve-why-accommodationism-wont-work/ http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/01/26/145838264/geo-glyphs-and-geo-polities-amazonias-surprising-past?ft=1&f=114424647
getting it from all sides. accommodationist-compromisers the middle gets it from both wings. or why it’s often easier to be an extremist read:
it’s really hard for the extremes to play nice. it’s curious that K.Ham and J.Coyne have more in common than either with P.Enns. they both take the Bible exactly the same way, literally, directly. they seem to argue in a similar way, they both are more against the middle than each other.
anyhow, what coyne says about enns really says more about coyne than enns.
watching the Australians muddle through. there probably isn’t a real solution. but in the long run demographics wins http://www.treehugger.com/urban-design/design-resilient-cities-dont-assume-resilient-people.html http://www.australiandesignreview.com/opinion/16811-resilience-toughness-and-damage
this is the failure of the church in 1850-
http://www.denimandtweed.com/2012/01/counterfactualizing-for-truth.html http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/compensation/251804/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/01/compensation/251886/
http://twistedsifter.com/2012/01/green-home-with-living-walls-planters/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/01/doomsday-speeches-if-d-day-and-the-moon-landing-had-failed/251953/ https://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/michael-sudduths-conversion-to/ http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/roach13/English http://mashable.com/2012/01/26/udemy-faculty-project/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/jan/26/modern-believer-not-suspicious-enough
MW posted this to fb page
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
—-to depends how the wealthy get rich and how they sustain their position.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
this is not true. where does the wealth from the division of labor come from? organizations can and do create wealth that their members working separately can not. likewise there are many intangibles that govt creates, peace potentially chief among them.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
this is likewise patently false. distribution of land in taiwan created extraordinary wealth as people took care of the land(mcarthur did the same in post war japan, so did sweden and norway after 1930′s). absentee landlords and concentration of wealth often leads to misuse and waste, not just of the wealth but of the talents and time of the people who can not get access to enough capital to survive, the irish potato famine is a good example. what both the swedes and irish did in america following immigration ought to give pause to those who praise concentration of wealth.
these are platitudes that a bit of historical analysis ought to dissipate.
2 interesting ideas:
The evidence that the extremes of both parties have a stranglehold on power in Congress is fairly convincing. The center, for all intents and purposes, is gone. Almost all Democrats are liberals today and all Republicans are conservatives.
It isn’t just polarization that has afflicted Washington. It is ideological extremism that is largely to blame for the inaction of Congress in the face of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression — what one scholar who has studied the problem refers to as “asymmetrical polarization.”