From the comments: “I think to be a jihadi you have to belief in something larger than yourself.”

She may need some doubles, what with the attacks.

Read the whole thing.

Another one that we’ve had for a while is this light bulb changer, which makes changing bulbs in high fixtures a lot easier. Every couple of years I have to get a new one as the suction-cup rubber hardens with age, but it’s worth it.

Unfortunately, bulbs in the chandelier in the foyer go in upside-down, so you can’t use this for that. I keep thinking of getting a winch installed to lower it, but that would probably be prohibitively expensive. Though kind of cool.

UPDATE: A couple of readers recommend the Giraffe system. Not as cool as a motorized winch, but . . . .

In response to the Columbia Journalism Review’s accusing me of “blackmailing” the Attorney General of the United States, I must take notice that the mainstream media as a journalistic establishment IS paying attention to the ongoing ACORN scandal. Good. I thought so.

What the Columbia Journalism Review is doing is very similar to what Media Matters is doing: protecting the Democrat-Media Complex, the natural alliance of the Democratic Party and the mainstream media. This ACORN investigation has been going on for two months and Hannah, James, and I have proven to be truth-tellers every step of the way, while the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now has been proven time and again to be liars.

And CJR has become harder and harder to distinguish from The Nation. Except that The Nation will, occasionally, take on the establishment.

How do economists reach consensus? Do they confer and corroborate like climate scientists? Or is the consensus achieved through a newspaper editorial process of strategically collecting quotes and designating the speakers as “dispassionate”? Or is it more a matter of slapping a headline on an article that doesn’t make a convincing case for consensus at all?

I’m guessing it’s that last.

That’s me taking it off the grill last year. (Hey, image-recycling is all the rage these days.) Note that I had already carved off a slice to “test” it. Test passed!

Hope it turns out as well this year.

Plus this: “Although women tend to love the notion of government control more than men do, it is women who will be told they’ll have to cut back. On treatments. And years. You know we’ve been taking more than our share.”

UPDATE: A reader emails:

My ex wife has spent her life in health care, and is now involved with clinical trials in cancer research. I asked her what she thought about the new guidelines on mammograms and Pap smears. She said, “Well, if they die sooner, I suppose that will save a lot of money in the long run.” She also commented on how many women they see in their 30s and 40s who have breast cancer.

They do seem to be turning on a dime regarding the early screening and detection stuff, don’t they?

UPDATE: Reader Jon Barlow, an orthopedic surgeon, writes:

Evidence that we are overscreening has been documented in the literature in various manners for the past 10 years or so. One excellent example is breast self exams for women. Evidence has shown in a fairly reproducible manner that breast self exams do not improve mortality, but do lead to unnecessary procedures (for cystic change, etc). In any system, we should do what is right for patients. I don’t know the literature on mammography, but we need to ensure that we are doing what is right for the majority of people. That’s the rationale behind evidence based medicine. To cite that one knows “many women in their 30s” with breast cancer doesn’t imply that we should all get mammograms at 30. I am as vehemently opposed to the current health care reform as you are….we just need to be certain that we continue to use facts as our basis rather than feelings.

Well, it’s true that there’s a genuine dispute over the value of early screening. But it’s also true that the turnabout on this seems to be happening quite suddenly. And that timing gives rise to a worry that the shift, perhaps just from one plausible approach to a different plausible approach, is taking place now because of politics. Perhaps that’s harmless — they’re both plausible approaches, right? — but it’s still troubling.

It’s also true, as Ann Althouse points out above, that any politically inspired limits on health care will affect women more, because women are considerably bigger consumers of health care services. That’s something we’d be hearing a lot about, if the usual suspects weren’t lined up firmly behind ObamaCare.

MORE: Reader Tim Johnson writes:

I’m a fourth year med student going into Ophthalmology (eyes). The medical community seems to have known for a while that breast self-exams weren’t effective. But as recently as Breast Cancer Month last month, we were telling women to self exam monthly. The real reason for the seeming quick turnaround is where the debate occurred. Like I said, while the medical community has debated this for a while, we continued to tell women to keep self-examining as if nothing had changed. I think this episode really offers lessons for future controversies and guidelines. As new data debunk prior assumptions, slow transitions in the lay community should reflect those in the medical community, so as to avoid the whiplash we’re seeing now.

When experts try to present a united front to the public despite doubts within the profession, it usually produces less, not more, credibility in the end.

UPDATE: Bush-era Justice Department alumni Jim Comey and Jack Goldsmith defend Holder’s decision. “Mohammed is many things: an enemy combatant in a war against the United States whom the government can detain without trial until the conflict ends; a war criminal subject to trial by military commission under the laws of war; and someone answerable in federal court for violations of the U.S. criminal code. Which system he is placed in for purposes of incapacitation and justice involves complex legal and political trade-offs.”

Your object… is to win elections, not arguments. If you will always remember that, you can’t go far wrong.

The second thing to remember is that elections are won with votes; those votes are out in the precincts, not down in the politico-financial district, not in political clubs, not at political rallies.

The third thing to remember is that a vote for your side never becomes a reality unless you see to it that the holder thereof gets down to the polls and casts it. This should be printed in red ink and set off with flashing lights.

The fourth thing to remember is not to waste time arguing with a hard case. In the years I have spent in politics I cannot honestly say that I recall ever having persuaded anyone to change his mind about how he was going to vote on an issue or for a candidate if he had already made up his mind when I approached him. Yet I know that I have influenced and sometimes changed the outcome of elections through my own efforts.

It’s good advice, and his book, Take Back Your Government, is still pretty good. The technology is obsolete — though not as much as you might think — but the basic approach is still good.

Still fine. (Most impressively, it’s stayed suction-cupped to the windshield the whole time without coming loose once. The old one would barely stay up an hour.) The “traffic” feature works fairly well, though driving home yesterday I noticed that the Interstate was backed up (luckily on the other side) and it didn’t show up on the traffic display. I’m not sure how they gather information or update it, but in general it’s been pretty good.

For those who missed it, I got the Garmin 1390t.

First and foremost, the protests are about privileged kids demanding subsidies from working people. The UC system will continue to be heavily subsidized by taxpayers, and the students who attend are among the most naturally gifted, with the highest future earning potential, in the country. This is especially true at the system’s flagship schools of Berkeley and UCLA, where the protests have been most intense. Narcissism and self-absorption are the norm on college campuses, but it really is pushing the limits to throw such a tantrum at the idea that you will be getting a smaller amount of free money taken out of the paychecks of strapped taxpayers, most of whom could never dream of the advantages and opportunities you enjoy.

Read the whole thing.