How to Have the Best Sabbath

5 Ways to Stay Spiritually Grounded While Traveling

Bunnies are becoming more popular as pets. People are finding that, with a litter box and adequate enclosure, they are very enjoyable. One other thing people are discovering is that pet bunnies might just be the vegetarian equivalent of cats. Cover your ears after the rabbit kicks the toilet paper. It hit something, causing the human to erupt in a curse word. NSFW language warning for that scene. Ludwig does a bad impersonation of Thumper when he throws a temper tantrum. If the Earth were flat, cats and the next little bunny would just toss everything over the edge. Next comes the bunny practicing to toilet paper the neighborhood trees. Nothing seems to be sacred around these little menaces. Whether it is coffee, a bowl of food, or a mop of orange hair, pet bunnies don’t care. They steal food, try to eat books, fight with imaginary foes, and roll off the edges of furniture. What other animal can seem so graceful and be so klutzy at the same time? Like almost all other animals, pet bunnies get the zoomies. That little blonde criminal in the paw cuffs won’t be doing any zoomies while he is incarcerated. The evidence in the case is strong. We don’t think he’ll be getting out of doing hard time, even with all that cuteness. Snow White might need some new helpers if they’re all as lazy as that dust mop rider. If you happen to live near Vancouver, BC, you can test drive pet bunnies at The Bunny Café. Some pets will take on the traits of their siblings, like this tiny kitten who hops like a bunny. When this unlikely duo goes out, their mom dresses them in matching bows. Please share. You can find the source of this story’s featured image here. The post Pet Bunnies Are Adorable Menaces — Here’s The Hilarious Proof! appeared first on InspireMore.

Governors and legislatures of Republican states—such as Florida, Ohio, and Texas—are doing good and necessary work both in establishing centers for education in civics and the liberal arts and in reforming state-run colleges such as the New College of Florida. But if they don’t want these temporary victories to be just that, they need to consider the future of higher education, particularly the future of Ph.D. granting programs. Rather than entrusting the next generation of academics to current programs, structured according to leftist, anti-American, and anti-truth ideology, responsible parties in state government should consider establishing state graduate institutes that bring together the best that the humanistic disciplines have to offer. As John Ellis recounts in “The Breakdown of Higher Education” (2020), it was already the case in 1999 that professors who were “left-of-center” dramatically outnumbered their “right-of-center” colleagues by a ratio of 5-to-1, generally, but much more radically in the humanities. English departments at that time had a ratio of 88-to-3, and politics was similar at 81-to-2. The problem, especially in our moment, is not the voting record of the faculty, but the anti-academic ideological position which is now standard among the campus left. Roger Kimball described this position in “Tenured Radicals” (1990). It is ideological, meaning “not simply a set of opinions” but, in the words of political philosopher Hannah Arendt, composed of “isms which to the satisfaction of their adherents can explain everything and every occurrence by deducing it from a single premise,” not grappling with the complexity of the world. It fails to do so because it is “interlinguistic,” because according to this ideology, “neither philosophy, nor literary theory, nor even history refers to the real world.” It is not open to rational debate because it does not conceive of its work as oriented toward truth, which the philosopher Josef Pieper argued is the fundamental focus of all truly academic study. That this ideological position has become standard in state-run Ph.D. programs helps explain my experience in a first-semester historiography seminar. Such seminars are foundational for doctoral students, as they examine the varieties of historical practice and begin to think critically about the vocation of the historian. But I found less critical discussion in that seminar at an R1 research university than in my senior history seminar at the small, Catholic University of Dallas. Why? Two reasons: the lack of desire for truth as such, and the lack of adequate knowledge to pursue it. Take one example: In both courses, I read a book by a thinker who has been a major influence on not only many historians, but on student culture at schools like Columbia, particularly in their pro-Palestine, anti-Israel protests: Edward Said’s “Orientalism.” Said’s thesis is essentially that the West has created an image of the East as inferior, more given to passion rather than reason, for the sake of justifying colonialism, and he argues that this has been the case from the ancient Greeks until the present of his writing. At my R1 Ph.D. program, our seminar barely considered whether this argument was true but rather featured effervescent praise for the author and considered how we could apply his idea to our research. At the University of Dallas, however, the question of truth was central. The students in the course, thanks to shared studies in the core curriculum where we studied Greek tragedy and the Catholic poetry of Dante Alighieri, both subjects of Said’s ire, could assess how his interpretation presented a misunderstanding of these works in the service of his political agenda. What this story illustrates is not only the unfortunate failings of publicly-funded graduate education in the U.S., but also the way forward. Responsible state governments should establish graduate institutes to educate the next generation of professors. These graduate institutes would seek to give its students a foundational education in the disciplines of literature, history, philosophy, politics, and theology, while specializing in one of these, allowing them to see the truth beyond the current constraints of state university programs. A model for this exists: the University of Dallas’ Institute for Philosophic Studies, which brings students of different disciplines together in a sequence of interdisciplinary core courses. The core sequence is now composed on a ”Great Books” model, such that students take courses from ”Homer and Virgil” to ”Hegel, Nietzsche, and Dostoevsky,” becoming familiar with the literature, philosophy, theology, and political philosophy of the greatest Western thinkers. But the Institute’s core was once arranged as a historical sequence, which suggests another model for states to consider in organizing a program of their own. By allowing states to test out different variations of such institutes, federalism provides a solution to the problem better than the current academic status quo. In founding such graduate institutes, state governments should seek to find capable administrators and faculty who not only support the mission of liberal arts education—namely the pursuit of truth and the formation of free citizens—but are committed to their particular states and these institutions. Recent events in higher education show that new administrators can lead to the collapse of good programs, but committed leadership could lead to a revitalization of the humanities disciplines which shape the imagination and sharpen our ability to reason. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Red States Shouldn’t Forget the Future of University Education appeared first on The Daily Signal.

IFLScience investigates why the key to alien life in the cosmos may lie deep underground on Earth.

The beloved dog starred in six movies during the Roaring Twenties. After Strongheart died in 1929, author J. Allen Boone chronicled their enduring connection in a pair of nonfiction books

Allowing for financial compensation for living organ donations would improve the lives of people on dialysis and improve America’s fiscal health.

Maybe it’s time America began to . . . focus on the family.