Is George W Bush experiencing a renaissance in time for his brother’s possible presidential campaign? For those of you who missed it, check out his paintings.
Are today’s ministries too focused on the family?
Gay marriage does not, in my view, weaken the institution. Some proposals, I believe, would.
Mark Kleiman writes up a potential hole in the lead-crime theory.
One way to reduce drunk driving may be to elongate pub hours.
Baylen Linnekin looks in on bans on sharing food with the homeless.
The Verge doesn’t let it’s writers look at the traffic numbers for fear that it will taint the process.
According to Matt Asay, more companies are using open source, and not because it’s free.
West German Chancellor Willy Brandt famously knelt at a Polish memorial and helped repair FRG/Polish relations. Should Japan’s Abe do the same? Alexander Lanoszka says not.
About the Author
6 Responses to Linkluster Billion Galaxies
Leave a Reply to Φ Cancel reply
please enter your email address on this page.
Espresso
"Okay, so we invented viable and fully functional jetpacks, what do we do now?"
Japan : "SAMOURAI FIGHTS!!!" pic.twitter.com/X8dy5XTN23
— Karen-chan 🍂 (@Fire_Sister_Bee) March 24, 2018
Prevailing theory assumes that people enforce norms in order to pressure others to act in ways that they approve. Yet there are numerous examples of “unpopular norms” in which people compel each other to do things that they privately disapprove. While peer sanctioning suggests a ready explanation for why people conform to unpopular norms, it is harder to understand why they would enforce a norm they privately oppose. The authors argue that people enforce unpopular norms to show that they have complied out of genuine conviction and not because of social pressure. They use laboratory experiments to demonstrate this “false enforcement” in the context of a wine tasting and an academic text evaluation. Both studies find that participants who conformed to a norm due to social pressure then falsely enforced the norm by publicly criticizing a lone deviant. A third study shows that enforcement of a norm effectively signals the enforcer’s genuine support for the norm. These results
demonstrate the potential for a vicious cycle in which perceived pressures to conform to and falsely enforce an unpopular norm re-inforce one another.
Source: The False Enforcement of Unpopular Norms – ecb55a2c5194fd1c16532c2c92599c6931fb.pdf
Several recent studies have investigated the consequences of racial intermarriage for marital stability. None of these studies properly control for first-order racial differences in divorce risk, therefore failing to appropriately identify the effect of intermarriage. Our article builds on an earlier generation of studies to develop a model that appropriately identifies the consequences of crossing racial boundaries in matrimony. We analyze the 1995 and 2002 National Survey of Family Growth using a parametr
Source: Broken Boundaries or Broken Marriages?… (PDF Download Available)
New smoking ban in mental health units is just cruel
If there is one thing in that statement which I would take issue with, it is Mallon’s overly optimistic belief that the new policy is “well-meaning”.
That’s because anyone who has spent any time in an Irish hospital over the last few years will have seen the smoking ban enforced in draconian and nasty ways which are simply punitive and judgmental.
Even those who have been fortunate enough to stay away from hospitals in that time can see the results of such bans.
Drive by the Mater on any rainy day, for instance, and you will see patients huddled together in their dressing gowns, exposed to the elements as they take a break from the drudgery of hospital life. This, apparently, is healthier than allowing the patients an enclosed area – which they used to have – where they could smoke without bothering anyone else and, perhaps, not get soaked to the bone at the same time.
People smoke in hospitals for a variety of reasons, and one which is never considered by the authorities is that it is actually good for their head.
Certainly, when my father spent a few years in and out of James’s hospital with the terminal, non-smoking related disease which would ultimately kill him, he measured the days by increments of when he’d go out for a smoke. It broke the endless monotony of living on a ward and, like many other long-term patients, he was determined to not become a ‘lifer’, one of those lost, institutionalised souls who simply lie in bed all day staring at the ceiling.
One might be forgiven for believing that this is more about sin and repentance than concern for the welfare of the sinners.
Recent Comments
- erotik on Gutcheck CapitalismRemarkable! Its genuinely awesome article, I have got much clear idea concerning from…
- Alison Macdonald on The Young GirlI AM a Turner's woman. My Turner's was dx'd at age 17 (I'm now 62). The SVU episode i…
- Osborne Gregory on Ambrogio Lorenzetti’s The Allegory of Bad GovernmentThis brief post has absolutely aided me solve my issue. What a lifestyle saver! I loo…
- Andrea Christensen on Disregard This PostHome Thorn Tree Country forums Western Europe Holy See Please disregard this post - m…
- Wilkinson Sandra on Bo Burnham’s “Country Song (Pandering)”I've finished this report and that I absolutely need more! I believe myself to be a r…
- Cheyenne Lara on Bo Burnham’s “Country Song (Pandering)”I just had my iphone 5s screen repaired here, unbelievably fast! He did it right in f…
- HLM on Deseretian Toker ChicMy neighbor did a similar thing. His girlfriend said that if he'd start smoking and k…
- Laurice Lewandowski on SMV, MMVThanks for sharing your thoughts! There are, nevertheless, some disadvantages when it…
Queenland

Greetings from Stonebridge a fictitious city in a fictitious state located in a tri-state area in the interior Mid-Atlantic region. We're in western Queenland, which is really a state unto itself, and not to be confused with Queensland in Australia.
Nothing written on this site should be taken as strictly true, though if the author were making it all up rest assured the main character and his life would be a lot less unremarkable.

Hit Categories
History Coffee
-Friendlies
- Bawdy House Provisions
- Black and Blue Man
- Clowntown
- College Geezer
- Delenda est Carthago
- Dr. X's Free Associations
- Dustbury
- EDK@Forbes
- Game For Omegas
- In Mala Fide
- Inn of the Last Home
- Iron Rails, Iron Weights
- La Grande Anse
- Lion of the Sphere
- Logtar
- Master of None
- Newsome.Org
- No More Mr Nice Guy
- Running Forward
- Ye Olde Republicke
Regarding the OnFaith article on Christian singles: while I would agree that the church fails to appreciate the difficulties singles face today in their efforts to get married, this particular writer is consistent in a couple of ways.
First, it isn’t true that churches ignore singles. On the contrary, most churches of any size maintain thriving singles ministries, with Sunday school classes, Bible studies, and social events. But then Gina turns around and complains that singles are kept in a ghetto within the church. Even if this is true — she doesn’t specify what exactly she means — it’s not the same thing as not having ministries for singles. If the charge has any merit, it is that families in smaller churches without singles ministries often fail to appreciate how lonely it is for single people to have to go home from church to an empty apartment.
Second, the author complains that “various cultural factors and trends” impede marriage today (which is true enough, though I would have liked to hear hear be more specific), but that’s not what Rev. Moehler was addressing when he discouraged people from intentionally postponing marriage. (It is significant that the criticism he received for this statement came exclusively from women.) It seems to me that Gina wants to have it both ways: exempt women from criticism for postponing marriage through age 29, and then demand sympathy for their diminished prospects from 31 on.
These are fair criticisms.
I’m not sure I understood your comment about the Family Studies article, which addressed both the extension of the rights and responsibilities of marriage to mere cohabitation, and the simplifying of divorce procedures for childless couples. Which of these would/would not weaken marriage?
I think that both venues would. For better or worse, anything that makes divorce easier weakens marriage (though when there are no kids involved, I’m not as enthusiastic on the issue).
On the “expansion of rights” it weakens the distinction between married and not married in a way that encourages more relationship coasting. Removing yet another of the incentives of marriage. Providing yet another argument that “Our [unmarried] relationship is the same as yours [married one].”
Regarding the article on food truck regulations: whatever their merits, this was not a ban on “sharing food with the homeless,” and it was dishonest of Reason to characterize it that way. Further, the article applauds and/or demands that federal courts declare these regulations as unconstitutional without specifying the grounds on which they would be, especially in light of the broad latitude given to government regulation in general.
I don’t think that sharing food from a van should qualify someone as operating a “food truck”… the latter being justified on the basis that food trucks are a business making money from their activities. I don’t personally think that food trucks should be regulated to the same degree that restaurants are, but I would still regulate food trucks… and I would exempt a churchman or Samaritan in a vehicle giving food away from said regulations.
I think there is a pretty solid argument on unconstitutionality. The pastor isn’t running a business, isn’t making a profit, and unlike a Hobby Lobby there is virtually no argument to be made that he has sacrificed religious freedom by putting food in a church vehicle to distribute.