You want dark comedy done to a T, see “Barney Thomson.”

A sumptuous delight. Includes an Emma Thompson you have never seen before. A 2016 film. Typical British acting company success. Mystery (suspense) factor doesn’t hurt either.

William M. Briggs quotes a scholarly paper on origins and determinants of intelligence quotients, IQ’s, a paper whose publication is condemned by a raft of other scientists:

In a very short time, it is likely that we will identify many of the genetic variants underlying individual differences in intelligence. We should be prepared for the possibility that these variants are not distributed identically among all geographic populations, and that this explains some of the phenotypic differences in measured intelligence among groups.

However, some philosophers and scientists believe that we should refrain from conducting research that might demonstrate the (partly) genetic origin of group differences in IQ. Many scholars view academic interest in this topic as inherently morally suspect or even racist. The majority of philosophers and social scientists take it for granted that all population differences in intelligence are due to environmental factors.

The present paper argues that…

Today two priest-pundits offer essays that really cannot be missed, says the eminently alert Phil Lawler:

Father George William Rutler is at his best, which is very, very good, as he analyzes the US bishops’ discussion of capital punishment for Crisis. He focuses attention on the decision by Pope Francis to change the Catechism, to say that the death penalty is now “inadmissible.” One hapless bishop described that word a bit of “eloquent ambiguity,” and readers will enjoy Father Rutler’s reaction to that comment. On the new wording itself, Father Rutler writes:

If “inadmissible” does not mean something essentially different from what has already been said magisterially about capital punishment, why is it necessary to revise the Catechism to include it? Secondly, if the word “inadmissible” is deliberately ambiguous, why does it belong in a catechism whose purpose is to eschew ambiguity?

Now you see the alleged white supremacist, now you don’t.

Chalk up another for MainStream Mediums, who LEAP toward something that reinforces their narrative.

Last week, the FBI says it foiled a plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D), after the FBI infiltrated an anti-government militia and arrested 13 members who “talked about murdering ‘tyrants’ or ‘taking’ a sitting governor.”

And while the FBI never suggested a race-based ideology in its criminal complaint, the MSM – as well as Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (D), took the ‘white supremacist’ ball and ran with it – hard.

On Friday, however, the Washington Post profiled several members of the group. Notably absent were accusations of ‘white supremacy’ – perhaps after acknowledging:

“One of alleged plotters, 23-year-old Daniel Harris, attended a Black Lives Matter protest in June, telling the Oakland County Times he was upset about the…

See how our supreme pontiff laid yet another egg.

By Phil Lawler ( bio – articles – email ) | Oct 08, 2020 How much longer can sensible Catholics maintain that Pope Francis is merely trying to develop— rather than to change— the teachings of the Catholic Church?

With the release of Fratelli Tutti this week we have seen a pattern of media coverage that is now familiar. First there are headlines suggesting that the Pope has written something new and radical. Then the more sober analysis, arguing that this new papal statement is in line with Catholic traditions. The analysts who issue such reassurances are always arguing uphill— not only because the original media headlines leave a lasting impression, but because the papal text itself contains so much evidence of the Pope’s wish to promote change.

Yes, there is solid, traditional Catholic teaching to be found in this…

Fr. Rutler’s Weekly Column – His usual combining of the world, flesh, and Christian faith:

Of the many scientific contributions made by priests, including Father Copernicus’s heliocentrism and Father Lemaître’s “Big Bang” theory, some would rank higher the invention of champagne by Dom Pérignon. Something close to it had already been invented by monks near Carcassonne in the Abbey of Saint Hilaire in 1531. They were Benedictines like Pérignon, but he replaced wooden stoppers with corks and developed thicker glass bottles that enabled the production, a century or so later, of what we now call champagne.

When Dom Pérignon first tasted what he had done to Pinot Noir in 1693, he shouted: “Come my brothers, I am tasting the stars!” Stretching that a bit, it is a good description of the Christian encountering Christ. It is more than Archimedes shouting “Eureka!” when he discovered a principle of hydraulics, because it…

What’s that you say? Its long history.

It’s autumn again in America. But as hurricane season draws to a close, a final storm approaches.

Columbus Day is back. And with it, renewed charges of the explorer’s villainy; charges made, as always, from the cushy confines of the continental United States. Tension is higher than ever in the wake of recent protests targeting virtually all of Western history.

Christopher Columbus is a triple threat: white, male, and Catholic, he sailed from Inquisition-era Spain as if he had nothing to be ashamed of. Once a national hero, he now endures an annual show trial evoking the Cadaver Synod of AD 897, where the corpse of Pope Formosus was dug up and tried with full ceremony by a succeeding pontiff. Like Formosus, Columbus is posthumously found guilty. But at least the decomposing pope was assigned a proxy deacon to answer the charges.

You wanna do it right with your story, you reporter you, and you turn to the bible of correctness and what are you told?

America’s most influential media stylebook is discouraging the nation’s newspapers from reporting on mass urban violence, on the grounds that writing about what’s happening is “stigmatizing.” That’s right: The Associated Press Stylebook, whose standards are followed by countless outlets, last week announced new guidelines around reporting on riots.

After a “D’oh” definition of “riot,” the guidance preached: “Focusing on rioting and property destruction rather than underlying grievance has been used in the past to stigmatize broad swaths of people protesting against lynching, police brutality or for racial justice, going back to the urban uprisings of the 1960s.”

And never mind that increasing evidence suggests most violence can be pinned not on real Black Lives Matter protesters (radical though their agenda may be), but on mostly white…

She lies and lies and lies . . . boldly, without blinking, time and time again . . . about things that are easily found to be lies. Amazing.

In the debate Wednesday night, Kamala Harris stated, “The American people know that Joe Biden will not ban fracking. That is a fact.” But Biden and Harris have both repeatedly expressed support for getting rid of fracking. Biden has said that there would be “no” place in his administration for fossil fuels in his administration and he would make sure they are “eliminated” (Twitter). Biden also is on video saying, “I guarantee you we’re going to end fossil fuels” (Twitter). Harris, on the other hand, said during a CNN town hall that, “there’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking” (Twitter). From the Federalist: She also lied frequently, and perhaps in ways that were…