He spoke the words into his lips

what happened

There exist, in the course of human life, innumerable little verities that are deeply vexing to one's person that nobody mentions. To mention them would be a moot point; it would be as if to get annoyed at the sky being blue or grass being green.

However, these lilliputian bastards can build up to the point wherein you just want to go, 'Goddamn, I am so fucking sick and tired of the sky being blue or grass being green all the goddamn time.'

A better question would be probably be to ask, 'What are verities, and what are not?' But that's a different question, for a different night.

David Gerrold (Marker)

"We don't necessarily want accurate maps, we want useful ones. But accuracy is extraordinarily useful."

Waaaagh, he gets it. Can you believe this is also the guy who wrote The Trouble With Tribbles?! Crazy Awesome. Will obtain novels to read.

Humorous Errata

Let us whack mightily upon our enemy as the oaken staff assaults an unwary pinata! All for the chocolatey treasures within!

This time I'm with you 100 percent, Javier.

I don't want to imagine the amount of time and effort required to produce this. God Only Knows..

This quote nearly made me cry

In 1784 the provision banning slavery was narrowly defeated. Had one representative (John Beatty of New Jersey), sick and confined to his lodging, been present, the vote would have been different.

"Thus," Jefferson later reflected, "we see the fate of millions unborn hanging on the tongue of one man, and heaven was silent in that awful moment."

Mary, carry your shame

Well past all those eyes across the avenue

Running across this (This actually came up in a Boston Legal episode as well, so go figure), I came across some interesting legal trivia, more specifically relating to the Roth v. United States case. It's a somewhat important case in First Amendment law, and it's a sweet interpretation too, from the wonderful Mr. Brennan:

Obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment, but more strictly defines what is considered "obscene". 

Reading on, I was strangely confused that there were dissenting opinions on such a smart ruling. Turns out, the dissenters (Justices Hugo Black and William O. Douglas) argued the ruling didn't go far enough; they argued that the First protected all obscene material. Impressive, yes?

Additional trivia: Heterochromia is nifty.

Also, if you're interested, Slate is hiring general question answerers.

Pushing the fat man

And why apparently now I have trouble doing it.

Traditional trolley case: Oncoming trolley. Lever for you. If you pull, kill 1 save 5. Do nothing, kill 5 save 1.
The fat man case: Trolley oncoming. Pushing fat man will stop trolley saving 5 lives, but kill the fat man.

Consequentially, the cases have the same effects. 1 down, 5 up.

But why I can't push the fat man is this: I actively participate in his death. With the traditional trolley case, the one person on their own on the tracks has assumed some element of risk by being on the tracks; (regardless of whether they've actually assumed responsibility for taking said danger). However, with the fat man, I take his position from a level that has no risk to one that is actively fatal towards him.

Musing about deontological rights. Wonder if this intuition matters all that much. Wonder what Caroline would say about this...