(cont'd from #27)  Said Coolidge: "It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers."

Nicely said! I'm in agreement with you there. I didn't mean to imply that we'd be going backwards (or ought to); but I felt the juxtaposition of those two quotes seemed to suggest that.

Peter Robinson read part of a great Calvin Coolidge speech on the podcast recently, and it's really stuck with me - (running out of space here; cont'd....)

Hmm. "....its policies and positions are dictated by a group of right-wing ideologues who are completely out of step with mainstream America..." Who would those ideologues be? The Tea Party? Conservatives in general? It's starting to sound like yet another "abandon your principles in order to win" kind of thing.

By conflating this excerpt with Thomas Sowell's quote, the implication is that we're finished. Conservative principles = Kodachrome, Progressivism = digital. We'll never convince people to go back to film.

I find it interesting that despite the longtime dominance of the metric system in the UK, Brits still seem very literate in the English measurement system. Gross over-generalization here, I know, but here goes-- In my experience, at least in the presence of an American, they will happily and effortlessly switch to miles, inches, quarts etc etc.... part of me wonders if the English enjoy the subversiveness of it :-)

I'm just reminded of a Slate post from a while back, discussing the alpha male/wolf pack social dynamic of the men on Entourage:

"Every guy between the ages of 13 and 30 has got that one friend destined for greatness, either at the minor or major level. He doesn't have to be the next box-office draw, voice of his generation, or golden god of rock—a local lothario will do. For those of us sneered at by cruel nature, this person represents our only chance for sampling the run-off glory of vicarious accomplishment. Wingmen, moochers, and hangers-on—we're usually the guy's best friends, and we're remunerated for being just that. That this category had previously been neglected by popular culture is quite amazing. It's also why Entourage's most readily cited analog is misleading. Where women used to watch Sex and the City and ask themselves, "Which one am I most like?", men watch this show and ask themselves, "Who the hell is my Vince?"

Full article here. (warning, some salty language)

"I give God 10%, why do you get 18%?"

I find myself getting distracted by this restaurant patron's strange math. Tithing involves giving 10% of your earnings to your church or charity, not 10% of a restaurant bill you owe.

(Now if this guy was pressured to donate 18% of his income to the waitress at Applebees, I might sympathize with his attitude :-)

My understanding is that German was commonly spoken in many parts of the midwest. German words and phrases could find their way into English-language conversations, much like the way many Californians and Texans tend to pick up  occasional Spanish words & colloquialisms. I know there are  high schools that still offer German as a foreign language option; I assume it's because of our strong immigrant connection to it.

I read somewhere that there was debate back in 1787 whether or not to write the Constitution in German in addition to English...though I suspect that might just be urban legend.

That's the balance, sound quality vs portability. Seems like Apple has been working on that with their proprietary file formats; they might even be working on something new. As far as a "solution" goes, I'm inclined to think that iPhones and portable players will have increased RAM and massive storage capacity before that perfect file format is invented.

I can't claim to be much of an audiophile, but I'm old enough to have plenty of vinyl from my high school/college days, and I have many CDs as well.

I feel the need to come to the defense of MP3:-) Yes, it's lossy compression, and much of what's out there is inferior to CD. But, my understanding is that if you use the right software (EAC and LAME) and maximum bit rate (320 kbps), what you get is often indistinguishable from CD quality. I've spoken with several different DJs and musicians who claim not to able to tell the difference. Seasoned audiophiles will balk at this, I'm sure, but I imagine most of us music fans would be perfectly happy with 320 bit rate MP3.

Yes!  Thomas Sowell speaks very eloquently about this topic, in print and in interviews (w/ Peter Robinson on Uncommon Knowledge). Greg, have you by chance read "Intellectuals and Society"?

Thanks for mentioning the Kinks!

In that long-asked Coke vs. Pespi type question of "Are you a Stones person or a Beatles person" I used to jokingly refer to the Kinks as the RC cola option.

BTW I encourage Ricochetti to listen to "Victoria"-- I know it was meant to be ironic, but you will never hear a more enthusiastic pop song about the awesomeness of the British Empire. A conservative anthem of sorts;-)

Edit/update:

I can't resist mentioning this line, from the beginning of the song-- "I was born, lucky me, in a land that I love..." ...it still gives me pause to hear that. Who would even think of writing something like that nowadays?

I don't know if your friend would be open to persuasion, but you might try this for starters: suggest he read this post by Paul Rahe, and ask him what he thinks.

Thanks for posting! Coincidentally, I was just reading this on Ars Technica a little earlier. Very disappointing.

Also frustrating for me is how this news will be spun, and all the attention you know it will get (just read the comments section below the article to get an idea), because of course, you know, it's just more evidence of those rich old white men lining their pockets and hurting the rest of us;-)

As a father of 7-month old twins, I say: yes they're a lot of work, and yes it can be tiring, but so far it's still less work and more fun than I thought it would be. I had long internalized that ubiquitous message that "your life is over once you have kids"... yet they're here, and I feel the opposite is true.

It's worth checking out the latest podcast: Rob Long has an impassioned rant that touches on this very topic (spoiler alert: he disagrees)

Wow! this sounds promising; I'm interested in finding out the pros and cons of this approach...