Rashly, He Appealed To Their Better Nature

Keep up the great work.

Still can’t believe I’ve been reading your blog for 10 years…
Tip jar hit.

Asked my wife to do her Amazon shopping via your link.

I guess a nice male bellydancer would be right out.

I think if you flang a kitten, it would do a pretty good shuriken impression.

At the risk of exposing myself to comment, of all the news-y bookmarks in my browser yours is the one I most look forward to seeing new stuff from, therefore I am happy to pay you to continue reinforcing my subconscious biases. They don’t just reinforce themselves, after all.

Done. Moar Nite Trane poor fa voar.

Moar Nite Trane poor fa voar.
There are times when I understand barely half of what goes on here.

More crab bucket

There are times when I understand barely half of what goes on here.
Night Train Express.
Just about the cheapest of cheap drunks.

Oh, by the way, that website, bumwines is pretty damn funny (that’s “bum” in the Yank sense of “tramp”). And yes, even though Cisco has the reputation of making a drinker temporarily insane, Thunderbird is still the king of bum wines. “What’s the word? Bird is the word!“.

Then the weenie said we couldn’t keep even the EMPTY in the lab… Buzzkill. Rule-follower. Worm.
Any wagers that he’s today a federal government bureaucrat, shamelessly kissing the asses of his superiors, while tormenting his cubical farm underlings?

More crab bucket
Wow. I’m not sure how to judge who wins that kind of chest-puffing competition. As realism and coherence seem almost entirely sidelined, I’m guessing it hinges on whose pretensions are the most contrived and grandiose. Though the spectacle of an author invoking “critical race theory,” as if the very mention of it should induce deference and trembling, was inadvertently funny.

I enjoy your posts on academia. 🙂

The Looking Glass world is clearly well funded.
I’m still processing the implication that if you regard Rachel Dolezal – a chronic fantasist and liar – as less than saintly, this is somehow evidence of hating transgender people.
I suppose it’s easy to get lost in the “social justice” word-pile.

Just about the cheapest of cheap drunks.
Thanks! Re T-bird, another fave of the Climb the Tree and Finish the Bottle Without Falling game. I think we had another more interesting name for it but for some reason I’ve forgotten it. And when it comes to cheap drank, never forget The Mad Doctor, The Mad Dog, Mogan-David 20/20. I wouldn’t let the H-L get hold of the latter. Unless you’re planning to hire a wrecking crew anyway.

Diane Abbott versus maths.
Oh my. Like the equally inept Mr Corbyn, she’s the gift that keeps on giving. To the Conservatives, mainly.
I think the high point is Mr Ferrari’s note of incredulity as he checks Ms Abbott’s bewildering arithmetic and randomly changing numbers, and asks, “Has this been thought through?” To which she replies, indignantly, “Of course it’s been thought through!” All amid sounds of flapping papers and general disarray.
And we mustn’t forget the Green Party’s great articulator Natalie Bennett and her difficulties with numbers.

It’s magic.
It reminds me of an activist and Guardian contributor named Zohra Moosa, who complained about being asked for evidence and practical details, when what she wanted was “a space where these ideas are a given.” These ideas being her ideas of how to spend “a lot of society’s money.” You see, justifying her “most basic principles” – explaining how they might work in practice, what problems might arise, how much they might cost other people – only “serves to distract.” From the purity of her vision.

“Education doesn’t increase intelligence. It doesn’t even appear, for most people, to do much in the way of increasing knowledge.”
This is as good a place as any to mention that Dianne Abbott is a graduate of Cambridge, supposedly one of the world’s best universities.

And it’s like unsuccessful mimicry of competence – “Of course I’m right! These experts here with university degrees that I pay to confirm my predetermined outcome say so!”
Usually only works in academia, but then again with government funding and a credulous media you can get away with it for a very long time, evidently.

Heh.

You see, justifying her “most basic principles” – explaining how they might work in practice, what problems might arise, how much they might cost other people – only “serves to distract.” From the purity of her vision.
Years ago, I blogged about a program which was being pushed by the Dems in Congress to provide government health insurance for a certain group of children based upon the income of their parents. At the time, private insurance for an unlimited number of kids if added to a parent’s policy was less than $500 per year with a $2500 deductible. A private policy for an unlimited number children within the same family with no deductibles and a waiver for pre-existing conditions would have cost about $1750 per year on the open market. Yet, Congress was demanding $4000.00 per child to be insured and the families covered could make up to $80,000 per year. Bush the Younger vetoed the bill having previously offered a Ten Billion Dollar compromise which was still more than the cost per child on the open market.
Anyway I wrote about it, suggesting that an insurance company CEO would gladly agree to insure the all kids to be covered by the program sight unseen for a ten billion dollar check per annum and the taxpayer would still save money.
Suffice it to say, I had quite a few adverse comments, one of which accused me of wanting to “kick sick kids into a ditch.” None of those commenters, however, took issue with the math, but merely the fact that having private concerns involved somehow made the whole enterprise tawdry and immoral.
It was really a fascinating discussion.

The good news is I’ve just donated a huge amount. The bad news is that Diane Abbott calculated it.

Diane Abbott versus maths.
That feeling when your morning interview to promote Labour policy is used verbatim, hours later, as a Conservative attack ad.

Diane Abbott versus maths.
Re Ms Abbott, this.

Have finally broken the secret code on my wallet. You lucky man, you!
Actually David, you along with M. Le Worstall, Anthony Watts, Matt Ridley, Steve Goddard/Mike Heller, Tim Newman (good to see you blogging), Jordan Peterson, Christina Summers (no sexism here please), Paul J. Watson and the lovely Milo (currently subdued but he will be back I’m sure) and a goodly number of others (including many commentators) provide an important counterweight to the outright utter tittery that prevails in the world today.
My thanks to you (and all the others).
Oh and special thanks to you for allowing the love of my life, Laurie Penny, to add something truly amazing to my education 🙂

“utter tittery”
*SEXISM KLAXON SOUNDS*
(For Micro: It’s not me shouting, it’s the klaxon being loud)

Rashly, He Appealed To Their Better Nature
And, rashley, she replied. Tipped.

Utter boll*cks?

Thanks for many hours of good reading. And some hilariously bad art. 🙂

My round. *ping*

The comments here are always interesting. Donation to barge buoyancy fund on its way.

Hope I’m not too late.
Happily, no. And thanks.

Much appreciated. And again, thanks to all who’ve chipped in, or subscribed, or done shopping via the Amazon links.