This is more serious than it sounds. The status of the Temple Mount is probably the single biggest sticking point an any peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians. No sane Israeli government will give it up -- they remember what happened last time the site was under Muslim control, in 1949 - 1967. But the Palestinians have made it clear (if it wasn't already) that they have no intention of sharing.
And since I like to find the story behind the story, there's another problem. The draft resolution denounces the Israeli government for (among other things) carrying on archaeological work in the area. Why does the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization have an issue with conducting science?
So if Iran's nuclear program is entirely peaceful, why is revealing information about it capital treason? Can you imagine executing a man for leaking information about, say, the Space Shuttle?
Super-hero movies are taking over more and more of the movie business, and if we want to keep some diversity in Hollywood (and I do) we want strong roles for women and minorities. In both this movie and the previous "Days of Future Past", Mystique is shown as being highly capable in hand-to-hand fighting. Yet during the climactic scene, she becomes terrified and can do nothing but vainly try to pull the villain's hand away. This would be bad enough if she were not a super-hero: any competent martial artist should be able to break a one-handed hold if his/her legs are free. But she's a shape-changer! Exactly what is preventing her from lengthening her arms and gouging the villain's eyes?
But, super-hero speculations aside, there is a real-life problem here. It was not long ago that combat roles were finally opened to women in the U. S. military. Let's be very clear about this: engaging in combat means that eventually, violence will happen to female soldiers that is far worse than simple strangulation. Are we ready for that?
It sounds to me like we're not.
Home is the sailor, home from the sea,
And the hunter home from the hill.
-- Robert Louis Stevenson
Bernie Sanders' campaign had less than $6 million at the start of May, a critical cash shortage as he makes an admittedly tough final play to wrest the Democratic presidential nomination from Hillary Clinton.
The two were on roughly equal fundraising footing last month, with Clinton and Sanders each raising more than $25 million. But the Vermont senator spent almost $39 million to Clinton's $24 million, the reports showed.
This year, Sanders has averaged more than $40 million in spending per month, underlining how quickly he could blow through the cash he had on hand at the beginning of May.
Since he started his presidential bid, Sanders has spent nearly $207 million, about $25 million more than Clinton's $182 million in expenditures. For her part, Clinton has averaged $26 million in spending per month since January.
It wasn't all that long ago that the Hillary supporters were depressed because the Sanders campaign was raising more in contributions than they were. If Sander is that bad with money as a candidate, what would he be like if he became President?
The Chicago Cubs, who have not won the World Series in over a century, are now the best team in Major League baseball. They have won 75% of their games so far, including a 16-0 no-hitter.
It seems to me that what we have here is a classic reductio ad absurdum -- if the logic is good, but the conclusion is wrong, there is a problem with a basic assumption.
So let me suggest a fig leaf. Hold hearings on Judge Garland, but since so many members of the Senate are busy getting re-elected, postpone the confirmation vot until after the election. That way, if Hillary Rodham Clinton is elected, which is the most likely occurence, the Republicans can hastily confirm Garland lest President Clinton nominate someone not at all to their liking. If a Republican is elected, they can always vote to reject Garland, since they have a majority in the Senate.
The one flaw in this plan: the hearings are almost certain to reveal that Garland is a superbly qualified candidate.
Granted, that's a little unsettling. But there's also some promise there. In spite of all the Hollywood junk where the robots go bonkers and try to kill the humans, I've always though that robots have more to fear from jealous humans than vice versa. There is no question that robots are already better than humans at some things, and will continue to surpass us at more things in the future. (It has been at least twenty years since the best robotic welders became able to turn out more perfect welds than the most skilled human ones.) But if we can accept being bested in some areas, maybe there's a chance for useful cooperation.