"No one would accept, in any other national discussion, the level of ignorance seen in the gun debate"

Probably true.

No one would cheer if a pundit said it’s easier to get a late-term abortion than Sudafed. His audience would ask to see his homework. No one would shrug it off if a legislator incorrectly referred to a “trimester” as a “semester.” No one would ignore it if a pro-life senatorial candidate explained his position on abortions in cases of rape and incest with a response that included something about the human body rejecting “legitimate rape.”

"Barcelona star remains only player in Europe who can mesmerise us on a regular basis"

Leo, of course. He had one of the greatest games of a very great career on Wednesday. Barca 3, Chelsea 0. The Daily Mail, not shy about rooting for English teams, was just astonished in this piece. And in this one, we read the following:

 Approaching the goal at an angle from which the world and his wife would have passed, Messi shot.

He did so with such ferocity and accuracy, with such acceleration of body and mind, that Courtois looked to have turned his back on it. He hadn't. He was just glancing behind to see where it had gone, as it appeared to have passed through him.

Maybe it did. Maybe Messi is magic.

It would make as much sense as any of those other things he does with the ball.

Here, at least at the time I'm posting this, is a two-and-a-half minute video summary.

Related: "Lionel Messi Won The League All By Himself".

"The History of Western Europe: Every Year"

A six-minute video showing the changes in political boundaries. By 1000 AD and even  more by 1300 AD it shows the zillions of polities in Western Europe that economists point to as a primary source of Western Europe's later prosperity. (If a ruler expropriated property or even taxed too much, another government was "just down the road".)

Decentralized government tends to be good for human beings and other living things.

"Auto Cop"

Featuring this these fine four paragraphs about speed limit laws:

But why should anyone object to (as Ford itself puts it) more “efficient” enforcement of the law? This assumes, of course, that the laws being enforced are reasonable, defensible, etc.

They’re not, of course. And everyone knows it.

Which is precisely why they aren’t enforced “efficiently.” It would trigger an uprising.

The whole point of the current system is the selective enforcement of idiotic laws. In order to maintain idiotic laws.

Related: "Is Every Speed Limit Too Low?"

"2 formerly obese economists lost a combined 120 pounds in 18 months — here are the best tricks they used"

I didn't use any of them. But one of the secrets of weight loss is that different things work for different people. I found after reading a fair amount, I still needed a lot of trial and error.

Although somewhat contradicting my first statement, one wag cracked that almost all successful diet advice amounts to this: Eat more vegetables. Lots more.

Which was going to give me trouble, but then I read what a famous cook--I no longer remember who--said: "Show me somebody who doesn't like vegetables and I'll show you someone who hasn't had them prepared well." I now agree. You will probably want either fat (olive oil, butter, cheese) or heat (roasting) or spices. Or all three.

Related to the economists' advice: The Economist, "The economists’ diet" and "Is This the Most Controversial Diet of 2018?"

"‘Backwards’: Hillary Clinton Apparently Still Has No Clue Why She Lost"

Ladies and gentlemen, Ms. Hillary Clinton:

Of the states she talks about specifically, six of them voted for both her husband, Bill Clinton, and for Barack Obama. Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida (with the exception of FL, which went to Bob Dole in 1996) together make up 99 electoral votes, a significant chunk of the needed 270 votes to win an election.

Related, a review of her awesome achievements: "Hillary Clinton, Pride of Radcliffe".