Press "Enter" to skip to content

Wednesday links

Been a while since we had a simple links post …

  • Tomorrow is “Take Yourself to Work Day” in Michigan. 🙂
  • Eric Peters says reopen and reject.
  • The great Paul Rosenberg: Nothing changes as long as we obey.
  • Still waiting for that $125 Equifax was going to send you for sloppily letting your personal information be grabbed by identity thieves? You aren’t getting it, but banks are getting their share.
  • Wearing a mask, are you? Not to worry; this company thinks it can help Big (and Little) Brother recognize and track you via your eyes and eyebrows alone.
  • And this company (not letting the Covid-19 crisis go to waste!) wants to combine facial recognition with mandatory health scans so it can decide whether you should be “allowed” to work.
  • Eight ways to protect your privacy from Alexa. But they forgot Way #1: Don’t let one of those devices into your house.
  • Norma McCorvey, the troubled woman known to history as Jane Roe, confessed shortly before dying that she was paid to lie about having converted to the anti-abortion cause. I take no public position on abortion; but that’s a weirdly newsworthy revelation. It seems both McCorvey and her supporters were playing each other. Or trying to.
  • Every damn do-gooder and billionaire (and, gods forbid, every do-gooding billionaire) has a plan for remaking the world over in his or her image after Covid-19. Nope, not Bill Gates or Michael Bloomberg (though them too, of course). This time it’s Jamie Dimon.
  • Did the lockdown concept really originate in a school paper by a 14-year-old girl?
  • This I want to see. Have a Good Trip is a gateway drug to legitimizing psychedelics.
  • Lockdown resistance art. H/T ComradeX
  • An oldie but a goodie: Sudden Savants. How a few people have become geniuses after severe brain injuries.
  • Majorly cool — if also majorly strange! — nerd house.


  1. John Wilder
    John Wilder May 21, 2020 4:06 pm

    Zara should have seen it coming!

  2. Comrade X
    Comrade X May 21, 2020 4:30 pm

    “Why put up with any of it?……..

    “Why not ignore all of it?

    Why not just do business? Offer what you’ve got to sell – and if people are willing to buy it, sell it to them. No one’s being coerced. No one’s being hurt.

    Everyone is free to come – and go.

    Imagine that!……….


    But Bill Gates won’t be happy!

    +1 to that too!

  3. larryarnold
    larryarnold May 21, 2020 9:51 pm

    Norma McCorvey, the troubled woman known to history as Jane Roe,
    Aaaand, cue the movie: “AKA Jane Roe”

    Final series of interviews prior to Norma McCorvey’s death and reveals the unvarnished truth behind her journey from pro-choice to pro-life and beyond – in what she calls her “deathbed confession.”

    Happy Memorial Weekend, sans memorials

  4. MP
    MP May 26, 2020 3:43 am

    Obviously, Randall Terry, who worked with McCorvey for many years in the pro-life movement, has a very different perspective on her “confession.” Freely admitting my own pro-life bias and the risks that brings of believing the story I prefer, I think his story sounds plausible and that he makes some valid points calling into question the story as presented in the movie, video footage or not. (Which I have not seen.) As far as making money, she would have been far better off financially with the pro-abortion movement.

  5. larryarnold
    larryarnold May 31, 2020 9:26 am

    she would have been far better off financially with the pro-abortion movement

    Not sure I see how that would happen. Once Roe v Wade was decided, she had done about all she could for the pro-abortion cause. Her “coming out” in the 1970s would have been exceedingly dangerous.

    And while the pro-life cause pictures itself as the underdog, I’d guess it has quite a bit of funding available. But I’m not passionate enough about that issue to go investigate sources.

    Regardless, RIP.

  6. Pat
    Pat June 1, 2020 10:10 am

    This is a good summation of the history of the pro-life movement. I’ve heard some of it over the years, and closely watched the movement building since the 1970s.

    But I object to the terminology, as it’s been presented in relation to each other.

    The opposite of pro-choice is anti-choice (or no-choice). The opposite of pro-life is anti-life (or no-life). The two terms are not in the same category, nor should they be antagonistic or incompatible.

    One can be pro-choice AND pro-life at the same time. A woman can CHOOSE to have a baby by sexual activity, by in vitro fertilization, or by artificial insemination; likewise she can choose NOT to have a baby, either by abstinence, contraception, or abortion.

    But they BOTH choose, and that is an element that pro-lifers ignore, or CHOOSE to forget.

Leave a Reply