Dunno--wouldn't French fries and burgundy on Cinco de Mayo be an even greater insult?

Behind the ridiculousness there's a big goal they are in danger of reaching--having everyone pinned down like a dead butterfly with an ethnic label.

I think you're doing very well, Mom! I just want to second two suggestions here--that you suggest DS bargain for the turtle with Brother, and that you encourage DS and Brother to work it out between themselves.

YOur son is actually revealing Fascist rent-seeking tendencies--lobby the State to confiscate property and bestow it on him.

Benjamin Glaser, I thought the South fired on Fort Sumter and tried to seize the weapons at the St. Louis arsenal, not the North.

I think Calhoun's statement was remarkably naive, from the perspective both of his time and ours.  He made it when the problem of slavery had already almost prevented the Constitution from being written because of the problem of how to represent the population of slaves in Congress. So he was aware that there was already a deep split in the country about the nature of these new institutions.  

For us, looking back, we can see the invention of the totalitarian state, and the rise of statist governments, even in countries with a long history of rights like Great Britain, that exercise considerably more limitations on their people's freedom than 18th century monarchy and parliamentary government ever imagined. 

All in all, a government founded on the rights of man requires a fair defnition of "man" and careful attention to those rights. It's easy even for otherwise great statesmen of all eras to pass off their own superstitions as the purest "reason."  

Dorothy Sayers "Lord Peter Wimsey" mystery novels. A cross between Sherlock Holmes and Bertie Wooster.

Another minor classic: James Herriot, All Creatures Great and Small and the sequels. Great portrayals of animals, people and landscape of Yorkshire.

Some family advice to "Get":

Invite both sets of parents over frequently (not at the same time) for modest little dinners.

Think of areas where you would take your parents' advice, and ask them for it.

Don't borrow anything from your parents.

Be friendly with your in-laws; treat them like people.

When one of you has a problem, remember that advice is cheap but sympathy is precious. Advice says, "I don't think you can handle this yourself," sympathy says, "What you feel is wrranted, and I share it." Before problem-solving, most people just want to grieve a little over the disappointment a problem represents. Later, if they feel supported, they can come up with a solution--or ask for advice. 

I don't think this has much to do with secularism; it looks to me like poor teaching. If there's real individual bullying going on, a competent teacher should be able to take the bully aside for counsling and a logical consequence. If it's just that the kids are getting wild and someone's going to get hurt, call an end to the game and suggset something else.

If one teacher can't handle bullies or general wildness, another grade level teacher or the principal should be able to do a little on the spot professional development. For this to rise to the level of the superintendent is absurd. And for the superintendent to "solve" the problem with a prohibition against the game, leaving the bullies in place to try other methods, and the incompetent teacher in place to continue to let bullying happen, shows that the incompetence in this district is up there at the highest level.

 Why is it so important for homosexuals to be "equal" in this respect? Equality is a lever by which so many arrangements in our society can be moved.  It's fun to test your group's strength by opening a wedge in marriage, and it offers big financial rewards in employee benefits and Social Security. And you'll be able to use it everywhere--already with the Catholic Church on adoption, with the military on living conditions among soldiers. Now I'm seeing it in my religious milieu--we're debating whether the next spiritual leader we engaged must conduct same sex marriages, even though that is against our religious teachings.

Homosexual practice is wrong; it is a misuse of one's body. But when homosexuals are "equal," no one will be able to advance that opinion in public.

BTW, about the innateness of homosexuality--don't you find it odd that that belief has such force when we have also decided that boys and girls are not born different, their differences are culturally determined?

The debt--or rather, the Federal Reserve policy of quantitative easing--is the biggest barrier to entitlement reform. As safe savings become interest free in an environment of even small inflation, retirees and near-retirees will flee into more speculative investments like the stock market we're already seeing run up.  And when the inevitable "adjustment" happens, or ther bubble bursts, people who would have been able to sustain themselves on savings and modest Social Security will become candidates for straight-up welfare.

Two confusions I see in the way this discussion is commonly carried on. First, there is a confusion between inequality at a given point in time and stratification, or lasting inequality. We must definitely guard against the latter. Regulations, licensing, demands for certification, and minimum wage laws and union shops make the lower rungs of the economic ladder less accessible to the poorest. Some are necessary, but they should be viewed with great suspicion by any conservative.  Our system of public education in cities has become a force for stratification rather than for liberation for the poor; it should be thoroughly reformed or dismantled. Conservatives should not leave education to the progressives who have destroyed it.

Second, observing the chaotic lives of the poor we tend to confuse despair and demoralization with poverty. Actually, we have an underclass that has been created by generous welfare benefits--benefits too generous to forego, but offering no self-satisfaction and opportunities for accomplishment. When conservatives talk about welfare, we should avoid complaints about paying taxes to give to the poor, and instead emphasize the sad condition of people who are wards of the state, never allowed to achieve and progress in their lives.  

Yes, phase out gradually. And not very gradually, get rid of the "programs" that keep younger people from saving--the student loan scam and infinte QE. We have a generation of younger people who are entering the work force too late, have too much debt, and because no 0% interest rates, have no incentive to save.

Meanwhile, as we cut back on the 5%'s SS, keep a wary eye on those who want to "protect" people's IRA's and 401k's by having teh govrnment take them over.  

Gates Foundation is just now funding a huge program of medium and small grants to develop online educational programs. There are tons of publishers and consultants already investing their own capital in this business.

The federal DoE funds educational research and research organizations to promote programs that have been proven effective. State and private universities, state departments of education, regional offices of education, and county and local education partners are all involved. Research on educational uses of technology, as well as lots of other kinds of educational research, is already being funded.

Only trouble is, it is very difficult to get teachers to change the way they teach to implement research-based methods. Teacher evaluation based at least 50% on student results, and modification of tenure and union rules to allow the least effective teachers to be removed, would make much more difference in education than this proposed research.

But you know

Don't worry, this only affects little people. The right kind of people buy from expensive Italian restaurants with white-sauce pizzas with arugula and carmelized artichoke hearts, and open a nice bottle of wine.

Increasingly there's an urban class that regards the city as a place to play. Museums, nice restaurants, high fashion, bike lanes and jogging paths, dog parks--these are important. The downscale things that go with earning a living and raising a family, like convenience stores, carry-out pizza, effective neighborhood police and neighborhood schools, don't count for much.  

Combination of ennui, disgust, and pleasure that at least something somewhere is going to get a little bit cut.

Z in MT: They weren't earned, but unfortunately they are relied on. Yes, Levin bases it on total earnings, but others have other plans. Besides, don't we have a problem with disincentivizing total earnings? There are so many ways to disguise earnings.

Long term unemployment + very little savings (they've been discouraged for years by things like double taxation of dividends) = disability. The worst of it is, we'll probably never get those people back as workers.