If you can't make your point without being deliberately insulting or condescending, I'm not engaging with you. Ad hominem = automatic mute. kthxbye

Perhaps one of the most important things to realize about Jesus Christ: God perfectly designed the life and ministry of His Son to fulfill every prophecy in a way that no one predicted. He gave us all the prophecies thousands of years in advance, knowing full well that every single one would be totally misunderstood, and that the eventual fulfillment would take everyone by surprise. So have a care when predicting the end times. God is probably going to subvert all our expectations.

Progressive hero Luigi Mangione will apparently defend his murder of the insurance CEO -- up to now presented as a heroic strike against the heart of a corrupt industry -- as insanity. "I was bravely striking back against corrupt power! I am a hero! But I only did it because I was soft in the head."

"Millionaire," "billionaire" and now "trillionaire" never meant "someone with _illions in the bank." It has always meant "someone whose assets are estimated to be worth at least a _illion dollars." Anyone who presents an argument to you that pretends it means "cash in the bank" is ignorant, grifting, or both.

I don't know who needs to hear this, but solidness and weight are illusions produced by the bulk action of innumerable quantum field interactions. We are smoke and mirrors.

Fed: "We're going to start taxing 20% of your residents' incomes." State: "Well, OK, I guess I'll have to reduce my own taxes." Fed: "Good, now that you've done that and are struggling to fund your own systems, here's some money to help you with that. Except you have to spend it the way we tell you." Samson Corwell: "That's not coercive at all! It's just incentives!"

Economic literacy litmus test. Ask them: "Does Elon Musk have a trillion dollars?" If they answer "yes," their opinion is founded in deep economic ignorance and can be justifiably dismissed. Honestly, you can even ask "Does Elon have a billion dollars?" He probably doesn't.

People ask me how I stay so optimistic. The honest answer: I read the data, not the headlines.

Accusing all white men of being Nazi-tatoo'd sex pests who cheated on their wives right after getting married to them and continuing to send sexts to dozens of women until recently while blaming it all on PTSD and professing to be a changed man after embarking on a therapeutic journey while lying brazenly on television about documented facts -- that would indeed be bigotry. It's not true of most white men. It's only true of Graham Platner.

This is huge and deserves a front page victory lap: In an important victory for the principle of colorblind meritocracy, the Justice Department has issued an opinion declaring the doctrine of disparate impact, which for many years has encouraged employers to discriminate in pursuit of “diversity” objectives, not only not required under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, but altogether unconstitutional. The Office of Legal Counsel has directed its finding at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the government agency tasked with rooting out race and sex discrimination in the workplace, and reverses one of the most pernicious doctrines in U.S. law: the idea that disparities in outcomes should be presumptively treated as discrimination. Disparate impact liability has undergirded much of the left’s legal push to twist the CRA into a tool that practically requires some forms of racial discrimination in favor of favored groups. For example, disparate impact was behind the lawsuit launched by the Biden administration’s EEOC against the gas station grocery chain Sheetz, punishing the company for merely disfavoring those with criminal backgrounds in their hiring process. According to the logic of disparate impact, because black and Native American applicants were more likely to have criminal convictions and be screened out by Sheetz, the process was deemed discriminatory, even though it is implementing a completely racially neutral standard. Professor of law @GailHeriot wittily summarized the practical effect of disparate impact on employment law in her article titled“Title VII Disparate Impact Liability Makes Almost Everything Presumptively Illegal.” This is more than an obscure term of art; it’s been the legal embodiment of the push the left has made for decades to force American institutions to engage in racial discrimination against job and university applicants who come from supposedly “privileged” groups, like being white, male and/or Asian. It’s the legal enforcement arm of the DEI empire, applied arbitrarily in a way that made corporate America terrified of having “too many” disfavored white men on their teams. It has been responsible for a large part of the rise in the kind of hard discrimination against whites in many fields documented by Jacob Savage’s viral @compactmag essay “The Lost Generation” and @realJeremyCarl’s book The Unprotected Class. Victims of discrimination in the workplace have at last found an EEOC dedicated to real, colorblind justice under the Trump administration and the chairmanship of Andrea Lucas. The DOJ has launched what is likely only the first of several lawsuits against employers for blatantly unlawful racial discrimination against The New York Times for passing over a job candidate because of the color of his skin. Disparate impact is contrary to the letter of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, completely oppositional to the principle of equality under the law enshrined in the 14th Amendment, and offensive to the sense of basic fairness the vast majority of Americans, including many Democrats, hold dear (implementing it into the state constitution failed even in California). In the memorable words of Chief Justice Roberts in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” The opinion issued by the Department of Justice Tuesday makes this American ideal one step closer to reality.

This!!⬇️⬇️⬇️

The seminar we need.

The frustrating truth is that both sides are perfectly willing to overlook huge red flags when evaluating their own people; when it's somebody from the other team, though, the rules will be applied mercilessly and with blinding moral fervor. reason.com/2026/06/05/graham…

Yes - it is frustrating that Spencer Pratt was ahead on election night, and is now behind. Yes - California’s system gives Democrats a structural advantage by design. Yes - LA needs serious reform, starting with voter ID. No - fraud is not the most likely explanation.

I'm basically here: If you can't get your Heinie down to a polling place to cast your vote, then what is your vote worth? If the government has to chase you down to get your opinion, it obviously didn't mean that much to you to give it. I'm over it. No more mail-in voting. Constitutional amendment, even. "Must be physically present on the annual, national day of voting." Then, if progressive governments still think access is an issue, they can do what needs to be done to help the downtrodden get IDs, physically get to polling places, etc. It's not about whether this is fraud. I can accept that mail-in voters tend to vote progressive. It's about reestablishing trust in the democratic process. There's too much doubt. The optics are terrible.

The whole "Celsius vs. Fahrenheit" thing is a microcosm for the human ability to feel superior about something they haven't actually thought through. This is the depth of the logic: - SI is the "scientific" measurement system. - Celsius is the official SI temperature unit. - Celsius is based on water! WATER! SCIENCE! In reality, Celsius lacks any real relationship to the metric system. It doesn't get decimalized, no one uses "decacelsius" or "millicelsius." It's the adopted child of the metric family, and only seen as "more respectable" because of that family relationship. Just another expression of the European impulse to aristocracy. It's brother Fahrenheit is smarter and more useful, but was adopted by a different family and now works in a factory. Far too middle class.

Celsius is only the "scientific" scale because of its inclusion in the metric system. Metric could have just as easily adopted Fahrenheit, and that arguably would have been wiser, because Fahrenheit is more intuitively useful in an everyday sense, and scientists don't actually use Celsius, they use Kelvin. In a parallel universe, the SI chose Fahrenheit over Celsius, science uses Rankine, everyone forgot Celsius existed, and Europeans had to find some other silly thing to feel superior about.

In the AI-writing age, I don't know what's worse: AI posts presented as-own-work or the obnoxious "this is AI!" whiners.