« An Innumerate SCOTUS, oh my! | Main | Sandbox - 11nov17 »

10 November 2017



An attempt to "Lift the Steele Curtain" by clicking on the hotlink resulted in the following:

The document you requested either no longer exists or is not currently available.

You may use the "Back" button in your browser to return to the previous page or click Home to return to the WSJ.com homepage.

To report this problem, contact Customer Support at support@wsj.com


is the link to the Kim Strassel piece

is how the hypertext link George provides gets picked up

BTW I'd like to make it clear that I consider USA Today to be the pop-up book of English language daily newspapers and visited the link given above from the RealClearPolitics website aggregator, my daily go to for an eclectic reading list of current opinions.

I found the fact that ANYONE could write that we should abolish parental choice and involvement in their children's education to be particularly chilling. Back in the mid 90's when I was part of a team from Mathematically Correct that would review California Dept. of Ed. proposed regulations, I found one that would have inserted language to the effect that parents had a responsibility to support the school's judgment as to what their child should learn... in essence, to sit down and shut up after they had their short say. It got changed to something like parents had a responsibility to do what they thought was best for their child.

George Rebane

Russ 1248pm - Thanks Russ, it's fixed.


Hmmm no sandbox? I guess my short interaction with an ACLU activist at the corner of Broad and Pine will go here reasonably well here, or at least I think they were ACLU according to their ID prominently displayed.

It looked like a ballot petition being circulated; being nearly a member in the past (the nearly because of their rejection of the 2nd as an individual right) I'd have responded to their intro except the first words out of the talker's mouth was something akin to "We're out to stop Trump" mission of obstruction and not a message of pushing for a recognizable civil liberty. A half hour later when my mission of coffee and reading newspapers was complete they weren't around.

Anyone engage them?


A belated comment regarding your link to the SSB performed in the Atrium of a really big hotel...

I hated it. Really hated it. Had to stop it before my blood pressure stopped me.

It did have a rich Mormon Tabernacle Choir timbre but it completely blew the rhythms and tempo of the piece, with a juvenile "sing the line, hold the last note an indeterminate time, then start singing the next line" sense of time. As one of the professional musicians I've followed has made it clear... the right note at the wrong time is the wrong note. It also was at a tempo funereal.


George Rebane

Gregory 1140am - You're a hard man Mr Goodknight. I saw it as inspired but unconducted in an unfortunately reverberant space with significant acoustic time delays.

Bill Tozer

“OK, how about mauve, a color yet to identified with any worthy cause? Yes, let's make it mauve ribbon loops – people have a right to know.”

Dr. Rebane, isn’t mauve sort of purple? I agree the ones who declare themselves “purple” have yet to identify themselves with any worthy causes. A local purple dude comes to mind.

Mauve? Nice color, but forget the pastels. Pastels do make sense for one who dresses and conducts himself conservatively and who also doesn’t go around beating his own drums incessantly. But, mauve don’t cut it. I say be bold and let the world know you are yet to be accused. Go ahead and toot your own horn for once. I say go with the color magenta so all will see and feel a degree of comfort when meeting you for the first time or have stood back afar from you because of all those other sordid stories circulating around.. It’s time to step out of the crowd and be counted. I, too, am yet to be accused. A small magenta ribbon loop is a nice way to flaunt it, without revealing too much. A small splash of color might make folks feel safe in a hostile cruel “cop a feel” world.

I have been waiting for this. I was wondering how long it would take before the Lefties would not be satisfied with labeling some a sexual harasser. You just had to know the Left would blow it up to something bigger. They just can’t be satisfied with accusations of sexual harassment.....unless it is a fellow Lefty Lib. But, if one is associated with one of them evil Republicans, sexual harassment has now mushroomed to pedophile. Child predator and all that. Very predicable.

Funny, the Senator Bobbie Menendez trial is wrapping up, but I wasn't sure if it even had started because of the near complete media blackout. Some juror asked the judge, “What is a Senator?” after Day One of jury deliberations. That is how I knew the trail was on, and the defense and procesutor had rested their case. Had to search high and low to find that among his bribery and suitcase of cold hard cash charges, there was revealed at trial his escapades with underage girls....as a party gift probably paid for by an unscrupulous campaign contributor. But, we must not talk about that. And he is a sitting US Senator, with no calls for him to set aside.

Today, Punchy called Moore a child rapist or child predator or something along those lines. So predicable. Pedophile label is next...if you are on the wrong side of the political aisle. If you are the Englightened side of the aisle, then it is merely sexual harassment....or I don’t follow Senators.....or I did not vote for Menendez.. Gotta to love these 50 shades of nuances and who is being accused in the public forum. With that said, two wrongs don’t make a right. Yep, wonder which bill Menendez voted on today. His colleagues have no problem with that kind of guy making law in the hallowed chambers of the US Senate.


I've yet to see any statement from the Babes in Rayland indicated they did the dirty deed... the horizontal Bop. Ten toes to Jesus. So where did Paul get that?

From a google on age of consent and marriage: In Alabama, The age of consent is sixteen. With parental consent, parties can marry at age fourteen. However, this parental consent is not required if the minor has already been married. (Other statutory laws apply.) Common law marriage is recognized.

So... putting aside the "ick" factor, where is the evidence he wasn't looking for a 14 year old to marry? After all, this was Alabama, not 'Frisco. And they wuzen't even kinfolk!

The comments to this entry are closed.