Birthday Greetings Preview

This is a surprise in progress. PLEASE DO NOT TWEET.















Not that there’s a drought and it’s hot or anything



Fonts Are a Basic Human Right



The New New Tone


TakeBackOurCountry-NancyPelosi“I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw — I saw this myself in the late ’70s in San Francisco, this kind of — of rhetoric was very frightening and it gave — it created a climate in which we — violence took place,” Pelosi said.

“And so I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made, understanding that — that some of the people — the ears it is falling on are not as balanced as the person making the statement might assume,” she said.

“But, again, our country is great because people can say what they think and they believe, but I also think that they have to take responsibility for any incitement that they may cause.”


NANCY PELOSI: It would be very important for the Democrats to retain control of the Senate. Civilization as we know it today would be in jeopardy if Republicans win the Senate.

MAHER: This and ISIS are threatening civilization. Oh, no.

PELOSI: Yeah, it is really important….

A little graphics help for Mr. Hewlitt’s new article



Funniest Corporate Website Ever?

(Photo of confused dog not in original.)

________ provides places for people to flourish

________’s purpose, the fundamental reason it exists, is to provide places for people to flourish. By “flourish” we mean to become fully oneself, which includes living an undivided life and growing into what one is meant to be. We believe that every human being has something unique to express (perhaps several unique things over the course of a lifetime). While building each of our businesses to world-class standards, we seek to create the conditions in which that expression will emerge. Flourishing is the process of living into one’s unique contribution. We expect to do this through our work.

Our Philosophy

confuseddogWe have come to see that profitability and human development are part of a single whole. Pursuing both emerges as one set of activities. In other words, they are not two things to be traded off or two parts of a “double bottom line.” Far too often, business is a world where mediocrity and meaninglessness are the norm. Indeed, this is what the consensus culture tells us to expect. We had a different view. We see business as a place of wholeness, connection, excellence, and meaning.

Our approach is to do our way into knowing. Taking the business issues we face, we lead with practices, tailored to the community in which they are introduced, and then we attempt to codify the knowledge that emerges. We begin with a hypothesis (for example, that work is meaningful, or that people are not only means but also ends in themselves, or that individuals and communities naturally develop); we then act as if the hypothesis is true; and finally we check the results of our actions. We tend to find that the results not only confirm the hypothesis, but that our actions actually cause it to be true.

The Air Force’s Religious Test (Updated)

Via Hot Air, Eugene Volokh asks, “Should atheists who refuse to say ‘so help me God’ be excluded from the Air Force?”

Air Force Instruction 36-2606 spells out the active-duty oath of enlistment, which all airmen must take when they enlist or reenlist and ends with “so help me God.” The old version of that AFI included an exception: “Note: Airmen may omit the words ‘so help me God,’ if desired for personal reasons.”

That language was dropped in an Oct. 30, 2013, update to the AFI. The relevant section of that AFI now only lists the active-duty oath of enlistment, without giving airmen any option to choose not to swear an oath to a deity.

My comment at Hot Air:

Although I’m an atheist, I have no use for perpetually-aggrieved Religion Of No Religion activists. None. Zero. The overwhelming majority of the time, I find myself defending the faith community against secular busybodies trying to drive religion (if not believers themselves) from the public square.

This, however, is an entirely different matter. (Well, it’s really all too similar, if you think about it–an attempt to marginalize a population based on which side of the religion fence they’re on.)

As Constitutional questions go, this is as close to a slam dunk as one is likely to encounter.

The answer to the question posed in the headline is an obvious and resounding no. And I’d bet the farm that it would be a unanimous decision, should it end up in the Supreme Court.

The only real question to me is who is the knucklehead who removed the exception language in 2013, and why? It accomplishes nothing, it creates a problem that did not exist, it’s patently unconstitutional, and it’s just plain dumb–which is probably why there hasn’t been a single coherent argument defending it, above.


Update, 9/17/14: Report: ‘So help me God’ no longer mandatory part of US Air Force enlistment oath


Update, 9/21/14: The Washington Times offers up a totally misleading (and probably outright trolling) headline to describe the reversion to the Air Force’s previous policy:


The Air Force did no such thing.

The URL indicates what presumably was a prior, more accurate headline, but a still more accurate one would have been “Air Force reinstates ‘so help me God’ opt-out to Oath”:


Update 9/21/14: If you’re not interested in clicking through to read the Volokh (although you really need to read it to know what the debate is about), here are a few facts you need to know:

First, the Constitutional verbiage:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Second, the relevant U.S. Code re “swear or affirm”:

So 10 U.S.C. § 502 expressly says that each person may swear or affirm. Likewise, 1 U.S.C. § 1 expressly says that an oath includes an affirmation. And an affirmation means precisely a pledge without reference to a supreme being. Given this context, it seems to me quite clear that “So help me God” in the statute should be read as an optional component, to be used for the great bulk of people who swear, but should be omitted for those who exercise their expressly statutorily provided option to affirm — because that’s what affirming means (omitting reference to a supreme being).


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.