Tonight, Albert Pujols hit his 500th career home run. The Los Angeles Angels slugger did so off Washington Nationals starting pitcher Taylor Jordan in the fifth inning. It was Pujols' second HR of the evening as he took Jordan deep in the first.
The Spectacle Blog
When Sandra Day O’Connor wrote her majority opinion in the 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger Supreme Court decision, she explicitly said that voters had every right to strike down race and gender preferences. That’s important because the news media does not typically report on this part of the decision.
O’Connor also ruled in Grutter that the University of Michigan Law School could use race as one of many factors in a “narrowly tailored fashion” to achieve diversity. That’s the part that gets all the press. But the majority in Grutter also outlawed the use of hard, systemic quotas. Moreover, the Court made it clear that quotas could not be used in a separate, but related case known as Gratz v. Bollinger, which said the point system used at the University of Michigan’s undergraduate program was unconstitutional.
Recap: Royal funeral, Sansa’s getaway, incestuous sex scene, Lannister-Dorne geopolitical conspiracy, Oberyn bisexual orgy, the Hound’s reckless robbery, Gilly-Sam sexual tension, blood magic, senseless slaughter and an impending wilding threat, Jorah Mormont friend-zoning, and one-on-one combat for the city of Meereen. Oh, and spoilers.
“Your joy will turn to ashes in your mouth, and you’ll know the debt is paid,” Tyrion warned Cersei back in season two. A Lannister always pays his debts, even debts with other Lannisters. Yet Tyrion is falsely accused, so which Lannister am I talking about?
Rather than ponder the question: “Who had the most incentive to kill Joffrey?” we should instead ponder: “Who had the most incentive to frame Tyrion?” Perhaps Lord Tywin is responsible for Joffrey’s gasping demise. After all, Tyrion is a blemish of shame on the Lannister’s Lion sigil. Lord Tywin blames Tyrion for his family’s shortcomings. Tywin’s wife died giving birth to the “hideous monster.” And yet, Tyrion and Tywin are the most alike—calculating, pragmatic strategists with an appreciation for power.
You would think the IRS would want to lay low while they are battling allegations of targeting conservative non-profits.
Think again. That didn’t stop them from revoking the tax-exempt status of the Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty for saying mean things about the Clintons and John Kerry, according to USA Today.
The 501(c)3 group received a letter from the IRS explaining that it had, “shown a pattern of deliberate and consistent intervention in political campaigns” and made “repeated statements supporting or opposing various candidates by expressing its opinion of the respective candidate’s character and qualifications.” Although it obscures the name of the organization, the accusations align with writings from the Patrick Henry Center.
Remember that time when the world's population exceeded its food production capacity, countless thousands of people dropped dead of starvation, and those of us who survived were reduced to eking out a subsistence level existence? No? That's because those late-18th century predictions of English cleric and economist Thomas Malthus never came to pass. Malthus failed to account for such factors as technologically improved means of production and declining birthrate. To any thinking person, a Malthusian prediction should be dismissed with laughter.
The D.C. commentariat is currently buzzing in unison. “Left” and “right” have united in agitated harmony. You see, Rand Paul is a danger to his party and this country…if not the entire world. Or so the chorus goes. Yesterday, Jed Babbin lent his full-throated support to their refrain.
With all due respect to Mr. Babbin, I don't think a 2002 op-ed addressed to the Bowling Green Daily News can condense the political philosophy of libertarianism “at its finest," nor the notion of liberty as the highest political end.
Likewise, I don’t particularly care to reengage the 1964 Civil Rights Act hubbub. The idea that a private business might reserve the right to refuse service has been thoroughly covered on this digital broadsheet. For his part, Senator Paul is more than capable of defending himself on this point, as he has countless times.
Rather, I’d like to treat—with laser-focus—Mr. Babbin’s contention that Rand Paul “speaks clearly because his positions are naïve and otherworldly.” He continues:
Former Senator Bob “Bob” Dole of Kansas has taken senators Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, and Ted Cruz off the table for 2016, saying that they are too inexperienced to run for president.
“A number of the younger members, first-termers like Rand Paul, Rubio and that extreme-right-wing guy, Ted Cruz — all running for president now. I don't think they've got enough experience yet,” Dole told the Wichita Eagle. He may have made this pronouncement with a straight face, though the Eagle reporter does not say.
Well, all right. Presumption aside, the advice may be sound. These rookies don’t have anywhere near as much Washington experience as Dole had when he won the presidency in 1996.
Feature of the Day: The SS Doctor Who Converted to Islam and Escaped the Nazi Hunters
- Grieving Borrowers Told to Repay Student Loan
- Drones Unearth More Details About Chaco Culture
- NYC Jury Hears Tape Defending 9/11 Terror Attacks
Income inequality is one of the favorite bogeymen of the left these days. Instead of asking the important question as to whether life is improving--after all, a 2011 Heritage Foundation study shows that most of America's "poor" live much better lives than what most people think of as poverty--their focus is on the widening income gap between the proverbial C.E.O. and janitor. Of course, the cynic in me thinks that this is because such a focus gives cover for the redistributive policies that our friends on the left favor these days. "Who cares that the rich bear by far the greatest share of the tax burden," liberals ask us. "They don't pay their 'fair share.'" Here is a fun parlor game: the next time this topic comes up, inquire as to just how much more the much-maligned wealthy should pay in taxes in order to be "fair." Better still, ask why narrowing the income gap is more important than improving the earnings of all. You will get some interesting answers and/or blank stares.
Occasionally Slate has a good piece, but an article today titled “Sex-segregated public restrooms are an outdated relic of Victorian paternalism” had nearly no redeeming qualities.
In it, Ted Trautman argues that we should do away with gender-specific bathrooms because they are leftovers of nineteenth-century sexism and needless chivalry.
But Ted’s male brain has obstructed the reality that for some women, this isn’t a matter of chivalry; it’s a matter of safety.
“Gender equal” bathrooms will become an excellent place for perverts to prey on vulnerable people. I can’t count how many times I’ve walked into a five-stall women’s restroom and checked each stall to make sure no men were hiding in them – particularly near closing time in a mall when the restrooms seem abandoned.