HOW POLITICALLY INCORRECT OF HIM...

Apparently, Charles Murray is just a big, mean spirited misandrist:

Note the discrepancy between what I just said and our common perceptions of what's going on with marriage. The very common impression is that it's the upper class that's had problems with marriage...

...For the upper middle class, marriage is alive and well. It has collapsed in the working class.

Why is it a big deal that fewer than half of working class whites ages 30-49 are married? Well, there are several reasons.

One is that marriage civilizes men. Married men... their incomes go up. Their productivity goes up. In a more general sense, adult males who are single are kind of a kind of disheveled population....disheveled in a variety of ways culturally and socially and they clean up their acts when they get married with fairly good regularity.

Another reason is that single people are not good producers of social capital. They seldom coach Little League teams and chair civic fund drives, or take the lead in getting a 4 way stop sign at an intersection where children play.

A third, more fundamental reason is the one that de Tocqueville saw. It's worth quoting directly:

"I consider the domestic virtue of the Americans [domestic virtue referring to married life in America] as the principal source of all their other qualities.

He then goes on to enumerate those qualities and concludes:

"In short, domestic virtue does more for the preservation of peace and good order than all the laws enacted for that purpose, and is a better guarantee for the permanency of the American government than any written instrument - the Constitution not excepted.

Debate questions:

1. How does what Murray just said differ from Kay Hymowitz's latest effort, which has produced the most amusing (if deafening) howls of outrage - along with cries of "Misandry!!!1!!!!111!!!!" - from quite a few righty bloggers?

2. Is Murray's message "misandry"?

3. If so, is John Hawkins a misandrist, too?

Is it controversial to note that people in their twenties are a lot less grown up and responsible than they used to be? Yes, it’s nice that so many Americans can waste their twenties clubbing and playing Madden — and I mean that. The fact that so many young Americans even have the option to do that shows we have an extremely prosperous society.

Of course, there’s also a price to be paid for that prosperity: Percentage wise, we have a lot of “adults” in this country who think like children because they’ve never been forced to grow up and deal with the real world the way Americans did in past generations.

Pointing this out apparently infuriates liberals, who in their ignorance, tend to confuse hedonism with happiness.

From what I've seen, liberals have plenty of company on the right side of the blogosphere. Just sayin'.

Criminal Faces

Criminal Faces

See how proficient you are at identifying a criminal, relying only on his face when set in a "neutral" expression. I got them 75% right, which is too good to be accounted for by chance. It turns out I'm reliable at identifying assaulters (something about the deadness of the eyes and the set of the mouth), so-so at identifying arsonists and drug dealers, and terrible at identifying rapists. The key can be found here, if you'll scroll down all the way to the last page of the article. (H/t Assistant Village Idiot.)

Heh.

Nature abhors a vacuum.

These new “secondary” forests are emerging in Latin America, Asia and other tropical regions at such a fast pace that the trend has set off a serious debate about whether saving primeval rain forest — an iconic environmental cause — may be less urgent than once thought. By one estimate, for every acre of rain forest cut down each year, more than 50 acres of new forest are growing in the tropics on land that was once farmed, logged or ravaged by natural disaster.

“There is far more forest here than there was 30 years ago,” said Ms. Ortega de Wing, 64, who remembers fields of mango trees and banana plants.

I've seen this before. I've spent some time around the battle field at Monmouth, NJ, and several years ago the park started an initiative to 'restore' parts of the battle field to its condition at the time of the battle in 1778. This pretty much involved cutting down a whole lot of vegetation that had grown up since end of intensive cultivation in central NJ. (by that I mean people who were doing tings like gathering firewood in addition to working the land) Grim knows what I mean.

It's hubris to think we really can damage nature on any long-term scale.

via American Digest

AND THEY SAY *WOMEN* TALK A LOT...



I love the hand gestures.

Traveling

Traveling:

I'm traveling again, this time on business, so I can't promise to be around much for a bit.

POLITICS: APPARENTLY IT REALLY *IS* A BLOOD SPORT...

Yikes:



In case you can't read the text in the screen snap, it says "Lawmaker Wants Grilling Of Libya Minister on Lockerbie"

These Congress Wallahs are just a bunch of big brutes.

BWAHAHAHA

Bwhahaahaha!

I'm sorry, I should come up with something more significant to say about hahahahahaha:

Moments before a conference call with reporters was scheduled to get underway on Tuesday morning, Charles E. Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate, apparently unaware that many of the reporters were already on the line, began to instruct his fellow senators on how to talk to reporters about the contentious budget process....

Mr. Schumer told them to portray John A. Boehner of Ohio, the speaker of the House, as painted into a box by the Tea Party, and to decry the spending cuts that he wants as extreme. “I always use the word extreme,” Mr. Schumer said. “That is what the caucus instructed me to use this week.”

A minute or two into the talking-points tutorial, though, someone apparently figured out that reporters were listening, and silence fell.

Then the conference call began in earnest, with the Democrats right on message.

“We are urging Mr. Boehner to abandon the extreme right wing,” said Ms. Boxer[.]

You do have to give them some credit here. It took a certain amount of guts to go ahead and hold the call. The guts it took to go ahead and repeat the spin with a straight face?

My hat's off to you, ma'am.

DON'T YOU JUST HATE IT WHEN THAT HAPPENS?

Some days it seems as though nothing goes right:

An eagle ray weighing as much as 300 pounds landed on top of a woman on a boat in the Florida Keys last week, throwing her to the deck and pinning her underneath it -- the "scariest thing" that's ever happened to her, she said.

The woman, Jenny Hausch, was on the chartered boat Friday with her husband and three children, taking pictures of a group of eagle rays as they flew out of the water.

.... the ray kept "slamming and slamming on top of (Hausch), trying to swim away."

...Klein said the animal measured 8-feet across, and probably weighed a good 300 pounds.

"It's just massive, it has a 10-foot tail," she added.

I know just how she feels.

Against the Law

Against the Law:

One of the points of unity among you in our recent debate about Dr. Cronon was the importance of the concept of "the rule of law." I want to set aside the particulars of that case entirely, and discuss the idea of "the rule of law" independently. This is an idea that has always struck me something other than an unalloyed good (to use Cassandra's phrase). I want to offer some objections to the idea of adopting it as a principle for ourselves.

Before I do, I want to recognize that I understand why so many people have adopted "the rule of law" as a principle. The principle is laid out so beautifully in A Man for All Seasons:



The principle as Sir Thomas More lays it out is exactly correct, and I don't dispute it at all.

To understand how I can dispute the principle and not Sir Thomas More, it is necessary to recognize the distinction between the People and the state; and that Sir Thomas More was speaking as an agent of the state. The argument that an officer of the state should 'give the Devil the benefit of the law' is an argument about the state recognizing legal limits to its power. Just as the play says, if we accept the state setting aside the lawful limits of its power to deal with evildoers, we will soon find it accepts no limits when it deals with anyone else.

The "we" who are accepting or rejecting the state's powers here are "We, the People." The distinction between the People and the State is that the People are those who retain the power described in the Declaration of Independence:

[T]hey are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

"The rule of law" is therefore not a principle for the People to accept as a first principle. They are the judges of whether "the rule of law" has become destructive to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Their first principles must be these three things.

The rule of law is a means to that end; when it becomes destructive to those ends, the law must be set aside in spite of itself.

If the law is unjust, "the rule of law" means the rule of injustice. Before we the People speak of 'giving the Devil the benefit of the law,' we must not forget that the Devil often has the best lobbyists. We should not commit to a moral principle that commits us to pursuing injustice on those occasions when the wicked have captured the law.

----------------------------------------

There is a second argument that applies even when the law is not unjust; even when it may be perfectly just.

The law is an exercise of the power of the state, and the power of the state is coercive -- it is based on violence, that is, even when an individual instance is not violent. Every act of "law enforcement" is an act of coercion.

Many times in life we find ourselves in disputes with others, and we could rely on rules and force to push people to accept our way. We might also be able to sit down, talk things through, and achieve a compromise position that everyone can live with. The second approach means that we do not get exactly what we wanted, but we do get a society that is more pleasant to live in. Very often, this second approach is the foundation of friendships and good relations with neighbors.

This is why we respect the old breed of "peace officers" more than the sort who consider themselves "law enforcement officers." A peace officer is preserving the order of society, but this often means letting certain things slide if an agreement can be reached between the parties in dispute. The law here is a tool, certainly, but he does not stand on 'the rule of law.' He mentions the law, and then talks people into sorting out their problems so that no one has to go to jail. The "law enforcement officer" is a tool of state coercion with his every act; the "peace officer" often is able to preserve the peace and common order through agreement.

The fact that the law permits us to do something is almost irrelevant to the moral question of whether or not we should do it. If the law forbids something, that fact is relevant to our moral calculations because breaking the law is a serious act, to be done only in cases of the type discussed in the first section. There are some laws we must morally break; the rest we must not break.

Once we have determined that the law permits something, however, the law is finished informing our moral decision. We have to make the choice of whether to do what the law permits us to do, or to refrain from doing it, on other grounds.

Like the peace officer, we often have powers we choose not to use. We often don't use our legal freedom to spend all our money on booze and gambling. We often have disputes with neighbors that we settle out of court. We often don't arrange protests just-this-side of our neighbor's property.

We often treat people better than we must, and that is a very good thing. The more a society relies upon the law to settle its disputes, the less stable that society is. That is to say that the more the People turn to the state to resolve their disputes, the more of their power they are ceding to the state.

A society that resolves its disputes according to the law instead of socially has given all its power to the state, and is at the mercy of the state. Do you wish to be at the mercy of ours? Do you trust our politicians to 'give the Devil the benefit of the law', or would you rather have the hedge of your neighbors just in case? You will have it only if you extend it to them as well.

It may be the case that our society has grown so unstable that we are running out of options. While last chances exist, to extend hands and rebuild some of the social power that guards us against exposure to state power, I think we ought to try. Certainly when we are dealing with thugs on the other side, or on our own, we should do nothing for them; but when we are dealing with ordinary and decent people, it is in all of our interests to try.

Dissidents and Migration

Dissidents and Migration

Mark mentioned migration in a comment thread below about one of the possible responses to a dissatisfaction with government. By coincidence, I just received an email today from my sister about her genealogical studies of our family. It turns out that our family tree is stuffed full of folks who fled Europe to escape religious persecution:

We have Elder John White, Puritan, who came to Massachusetts in the 1630s; Alexander Kilpatrick, Presbyterian, who left Northern Ireland and the boot of the Church of England (this is the story of the "Scots-Irish") in 1730; Jacob Hermann Arndt (later the name was changed to Arrant) who came to Philadelphia in the 1730s, when virtually all German immigrants to Pennsylvania were German Pietists (a religion with much in common with Quakerism) who were being persecuted or burned at the stake in Germany; and the Huguenots forbears who had to escape the massacres in France. . . . Then there is the story of all the folks after they got here. As far as I can tell, no matter which line you trace back, no family stayed in one place more than a generation or so. This may seem more normal to you, but there are many, many people I know in Philadelphia whose families have been here for centuries . . . .

I suppose the family trees in Texas are more likely to include the wandering branches than those on the East Coast. By moving to Philadelphia as an adult, my sister was making a retrograde movement that placed her among people with a much stronger tendency to put down roots generation after generation.

It seems that my ancestors had a higher-than-average problem with authority. For myself, if I have a problem with authority, it has scarcely revealed itself in geographical movement. I've barely moved from the location of my birth, and that only at a time in my life when I was not starting either a business or a family. On the other hand, I'm in a part of the U.S. that has been settled by Europeans only for what amounts to the blink of an eye, and therefore retains something of the tradition of exiles or malcontents. Our home is built on property that, as far as I know, had never been occupied by Europeans at all before us. At most, some had run a few cattle here, more than a century ago, before most of the present woods grew up. There was a bit of commerce here before the Civil War, and even a salt works not too far away, but the Union forces put an end to all that. Things mostly grew wild again until about the middle of the 20th century, when a slow trickle of people began to move back in. These were not, to put it mildly, the sort of people who would be living in New York if only they could figure out how to get there.

Would my fugitive ancestors be horrified that I joined the Episcopal Church, barely distinguishable from the historically oppressive Church of England? Perhaps not, since the Episcopal Church today would probably strike my most dissident ancestors as a hotbed of heretical license.

Starship Troopers

Starship Troopers

And now, for the same kind of ingenuity, but in a sillier vein (but I definitely want one):

Actually, we saw a car with front doors that opened in this peculiar fashion just last week, obviously on its way to South Padre Island beach for spring break. I don't know if the owners of that car could make the doors rotate and flap, too, but if so, I'm sure they picked up all the chicks they could handle, especially since the car was painted in a fetching metallic blue with a faux-alligator roof and all kinds of Barbarella-style chrome ornaments.

Ahead of Our Time

Ahead of Our Time

My husband maintains that, once again, we're on the cutting edge culturally. The WSJ ran a piece today on "The Artfully Disheveled Home." Out: professional decor. In:

[C]leverness over money, taste over expense, personality over hired expertise, idiosyncrasy over polish . . . . The fantasy of the undecorated house is Tuesday morning as it is actually lived, not as we would like other people to imagine it; it is the idea of energy, of chaos, of motion, of mess (well, mess within very circumscribed and aesthetically pleasing limits: children lying in a pile of books, artfully unmade beds, one piece of clothing strewn across a couch).

Our version of "un-decoration" is fabrics artlessly covered with tasteful dog hair, casually draped with the fascinating detritus of our complex lives, covered in a quirky patina of grime, giving our home that charming "lived-in" look. Boy, howdy.

I go further and apply this aesthetic to my person. Maybe I should start a magazine.

Fukushima Update

Fukushima Update

The news coverage has mostly moved on to Libya and other stories, but the Fukushima troubles are hardly over. Good information continues to be posted on the PhysicsForum site, a thread with over 1,300 posts now, whose members are exerting an admirable discipline on each other by relentlessly pointing out the difference between speculation and credible sources. Commenters on that site recently posted these two excellent links. First, YouTube is carrying video footage of several helicopter flyovers. This footage, previously almost unwatchable, has been run through a terrific piece of software that stabilizes the bumping and jerking of the camera.

Second, a slideshow from AREVA, a French public power company with a strong presence in nuclear energy projects of all kinds, depicts the unfolding accident in fairly clear schematic form, with due attention given to which conclusions are the most speculative. It is unfortunately clear that fissile products have escaped into the environment. The damage, nevertheless, still is not of Chernobyl-like proportions. The nearby crops, for instance, may have been ruined for this year, but it does not appear that the land is permanently contaminated. (We take our blessings where we can find them.) Workers have been injured, but reports of deadly doses so far appear to be alarmist and inaccurate. (I very much hope.)

This picture keeps bothering me, though. For several days, the participants at PhysicsForum have been discussing whether these could be fuel rods that were blown out of the spent-fuel pool at Unit #3 when that unit exploded on March 14. They don't really look like ordinary structural rods, and yet the radiation readings in and around the unit don't suggest that a lot of fuel rods could be lying around in the open air, either. Considering how much contamination already has escaped in the form of steam and coolant-water runoff, the last thing the suffering residents of the area need is another explosion and/or fire that might blow pieces of fuel rods into the air.

If this disaster does nothing else, it has demonstrated that on-site storage of fuel rods, coupled with vulnerable cooling systems, is a less-than-perfect solution to the public distaste for permanent nuclear waste facilities of the Yucca Mountain variety. The core containments have held up pretty well at Fukushima, but the spent-fuel pools were nowhere near as well contained as the reactor vessel.

Wisconsin Open Records Laws

Wisconsin's Open Records Laws

Does the law matter? I think it does. And because I think the law matters, I must take exception to a few of Grim's statements on the Cronin brouhaha. He begins by putting forth a hypothetical that differs in several crucial respects from the Cronin case and those respects are not distinctions without a difference. Grim's hypothetical begins:

Let's say an FBI agent started a blog called "The G-Man as Citizen." On this blog he investigated liberal interest groups and posted apparently factual information about the special interests and big money behind their proposed legislation.

Federal (and some state and local) employees are prohibited by law from participating in partisan political activities at work. The FBI is subject to an even stricter set of rules than those applied to other government employees. So the first question to ask would be: is there any evidence that Grim's G-man blogged on a government computer or during working hours? Because if he did, that alone puts him in violation of the law.

Because of the Hatch Act, I never sent even politically themed jokes to my husband's work email, nor did he ever send such materials. That's how strict the law is. Because my best friend (a liberal Democrat who voted for Kerry and Obama) works for Social Security, she doesn't send or receive political jokes or any other political material from her work email account.

EVER. UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

Has my progressive friend been "stripped of her right to question or challenge the government"? Of course not. It's just that if she wants to do so, she must do so on her own time, using her private email account. That's the problem with Grim's argument: he is conflating the rights and privileges of private citizens with their duties as employees of the government. He is also conflating public records with private ones:

The fact that a man works for the government does not, and should not, strip him of his right to question or challenge the government. To some degree we accept limits on that in the military, but only to some degree: and the military is a very special case.

...In the absence of any criminal accusations, security in one's person and papers should be absolute. The fact that the government owns the email sever is no more germane than the fact that it may own the letterhead and envelopes on which Dr. Cronon may have written a sealed letter; that fact bestows no right on them to open the letter and read it. If they wish to do so, they should get a warrant. If there is no cause for a warrant, they can go to hell.

Has anyone tried to strip this man of his right to question or challenge the government? If so, I must have missed it. The fact of the matter is that Grim's G-man is prohibited BY LAW from participating in partisan political activity AT WORK. And the Hatch Act applies to state and local employees if the entity they work for accepts federal funds (as do nearly all state universities). But there's yet another law that applies to Prof. Cronin: Wisconsin's Open Records law. And that law is stunningly broad. I don't have time to dissect it in detail, but here's a taste:

WHO CAN REQUEST RECORDS: "[A]ny requester has a right to inspect any record." Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(a) (2003-04)

PURPOSE OF REQUEST: "Except as authorized under this paragraph, no request . . . may be refused because the person making the request is unwilling . . . to state the purpose of the request." Wis. Stat. § 19.35(1)(i)

These brief excerpts are by no means a thorough examination of Wisconsin's Open Records law, but they are sufficient to rebut the notion that government employees, using government sponsored email accounts, have the same right to privacy as private citizens. They absolutely and categorically do not.

As for the notion that Professor Cronin would be "silenced" if he were asked to obey the same laws any government employee is bound by, that is a canard. He may participate in all the political activity he wants to... on his own time and so long as he does so in his capacity as a private citizen.

The real irony here is that, though I am NOT employed by a federal, state, or local government, I do not engage in political activity using my company-issued email account. I do not do so because, were a politically charged email of mine to fall into the wrong hands, I would be creating the appearance that my company encourages or endorses my political beliefs, and that appearance could damage my company's reputation or business interests. When I am at work, I am not "Cass" - I am Company X's Technical Manager. That is what my signature block says - it does not list my home address and phone but the address and phone number of my employer.

Yes, it is an old fashioned idea - the notion that private actions are private and that while we are at work, using computers and resources we don't own, we ought to be doing our jobs and not engaging in other pursuits.

It's also a damned good practice.

Security in Papers

Security in Papers:

Let's say an FBI agent started a blog called "The G-Man as Citizen." On this blog he investigated liberal interest groups and posted apparently factual information about the special interests and big money behind their proposed legislation.

Let's say that the Democrats in Congress responded by filing a FOIA request for all of his government emails that might contain certain key words. We're not talking about a legal investigation -- no one is suggesting he violated any laws or even any policies. Rather, you have a political party trying to intimidate government employees from expressing political opinions... or even insight into our political reality.

That's a rough analogy to what is going on with Dr. William Cronon, except that he works for the state, not the Federal government; he is liberal, not conservative; and he is a history professor, not a G-man.

Some liberal bloggers are speaking up in his defense, but this strikes me as an issue that isn't a left/right question. He is clear about his political leanings, and his scholarship has the potential to be of benefit to all of us. I learned several things I didn't know reading Dr. Cronon's posts, and I'd suggest you read them too. We should want to have those with insight into these systems helping lay them bare; and if we prefer conservative to liberal policies, nevertheless the answer is to try to do the same kind of work to lay bare the organizations operating on the other side.

In any case, no political group -- no Republican and no Democratic legislator, at any level of government -- should feel they can harrass American citizens into silence. The fact that a man works for the government does not, and should not, strip him of his right to question or challenge the government. To some degree we accept limits on that in the military, but only to some degree: and the military is a very special case.

Too, Dr. Cronon is right to say that some emails caught in such a request may come from students who have political concerns; to publish their names and private thoughts is to violate a trust between student and teacher. I am sure we can all think of teachers we confided in, or looked to for guidance at points in our lives. This is a relationship that ought to be honored and protected. In the absence of any criminal accusations, security in one's person and papers should be absolute. The fact that the government owns the email sever is no more germane than the fact that it may own the letterhead and envelopes on which Dr. Cronon may have written a sealed letter; that fact bestows no right on them to open the letter and read it. If they wish to do so, they should get a warrant. If there is no cause for a warrant, they can go to hell.

Mileage Tax

Economy:

For years and years, I've heard arguments that higher gas prices would make Americans morally better people. It would break our dependence on consumer culture. It would make Americans less fat. It would make Americans less greedy for energy. It would make Americans buy more fuel efficient cars. This last article actually has a pile of moral arguments: Americans would stay closer to home, enjoying their communities and building relationships. They would gamble less. They would use less credit.

So, I was not surprised to see that nobody in the political class is all that worried about gas prices: after all, they're convinced that high gas prices will be good for us. Given that the political class thinks we're not capable of making good decisions on our own, naturally it follows that the political class would be fine with high gas prices.

That is not to say that they would want to be blamed for those high prices. So, instead of the occasionally-floated 'European style gas tax,' we've gotten increasing restrictions on refineries in the United States; bans on drilling in lots and lots of places inside the country; a "moratorium" on offshore drilling; etc., etc. It looks like market forces if you aren't paying attention -- which allows blame to be shifted to the oil companies. If you look closely, though, you see that there is a lot of pressure being added by the 'hand of government.'

None of that is surprising.

So now you're paying a lot more for gas, but your job is just as far away as it ever was. You may not be taking a vacation or flying anywhere, and you certainly won't be living it up at the casinos! You'll be spending time closer to home, building communities, etc.

Still, you can't really sell your house and move closer to work because the real estate market is broken. So, you do what you've been told to do, and trade in your much-derided SUV for a more fuel-efficient car. Say, one of those praiseworthy Prius-type cars we've heard so much about. Or a Leaf. Whatever.

Good work. You've done everything right. Obviously, you must be punished.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) this week released a report that said taxing people based on how many miles they drive is a possible option for raising new revenues....

The report discussed the proposal in great detail, including the development of technology that would allow total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to be tracked, reported and taxed, as well as the pros and cons of mandating the installation of this technology in all vehicles....

[Sen. Conrad] noted the possibility of a VMT tax as a way to solve the problem of collecting less in taxes as people move to more fuel-efficient vehicles.

"Do we do gas tax?" Conrad asked. "Do we move to some kind of an assessment that is based on how many miles vehicles go, so that we capture revenue from those who are going to be using the roads who aren't going to be paying any gas tax, or very little, with hybrids and electric cars?"

You can read the report here. The report does consider among the "cons" the implications for privacy -- to whit, the fact that your every move will be monitored by the government to ensure they get paid for each exercise of your right to travel. Sensing the danger of trying to impose such a regime upon Americans, the report ponders possibly allowing some people to choose to pay higher taxes elsewhere in return for 'opting out' of the system. The wording here is careful: "Allowing users with the strongest concerns about privacy to opt out... might serve as a safety valve to make the system more acceptable to the public."

It shouldn't be acceptable, even so, because there's no reason poorer Americans -- who may not be able to afford the higher taxes necessary to 'opting out' -- should not enjoy the same privacy protections as rich Americans. This is not the first time this issue has arisen.

Keeping the roads in good condition is one of the legitimate functions of the government, and even the Federal government in the case of what the Constitution calls "post roads." They must be funded one way or another. However, our right to be free from unreasonable searches is not to be sacrificed for it.

Variations

Variations:

'Going down to Georgia, to knock down my last game... I had not been in Washington/ many more weeks than three...'



The song is traditional, so the way they switch verses may suggest they mean Washington, as well as Georgia. There is, though, a Washington, Georgia: I was there just recently. It was the first city named after George Washington in the United States; it was also the place where the Confederate States of America was officially dissolved by Jefferson Davis and the remains of a government in flight before the Union army. It's a beautiful place.



Like many traditional songs, this one has several variations. Here is a famous one:



Here is another variation, by the lead singer of Social Distortion on his solo album:



Well, we've got lots of gamblers down Georgia way, in any case.

Um, No

Warning:

I'm under the weather a bit, and the doc gave me some antibiotics. The warnings include this:

Although most antibiotics probably do not affect hormonal birth control pills, some antibiotics may decrease their effectiveness. This could cause pregnancy.

I'm pretty sure that's not actually true.

Aptly named "Badass of the week" (and probably year, decade and century at this point...)

When asked by Southeast Asia Bureau reporter Rick Westhead why he risked his life to save his wife, he simply replied “She is very important for me” through his interpreter.

Well said.