Is here chez Trixy.

It links to an argument of baffling confusion about the BBC by our fellow Britblog Rounder-upper Cabalamat:

Redwood is concerned that the BBC, by virtue of being popular, is unfair competition to private sector news websites. To a certain extent, that’s a valid concern. But the economy doesn’t exist to make private sector entrepreneurs rich, it exists to make things people need and want. And people clearly do want the BBC — according to Alexa the BBC have the number 2 and number 4 news websites worldwide, and by far the most popular UK-based one.

Making entrepreneurs rich is a means goal not an end goal; it’s only good if it furthers the end goal of the economy making things that people need and want. The BBC news website is clearly something people want, because it is very popular, and sacrificing it just so Rupert Murdoch can make more profits would harm the overall welfare of the people of Britain. But maybe the Tories care less about the British people than they do about their rich friends.

What?

First, the BBC makes its own top people startlingly rich.

Second, it is obvious that if the public are forced to pay for something for long enough, a proportion of the public will enjoy it. Just say there was a poll tax to fund football. The matches would be popular among football fans, who would say they need and want them. But that would not be an argument for the whole set-up.

Third, if the economy "exists to make things people need and want" (Note: arguably a teleological argument and possibly bogus), then if the public want the BBC the public will pay for it if given a chance, to the exact extent the public do want it, no more and no less. The success of Tesco turns on people shopping there. Why should one broadcaster be favoured over others?

Blimey.

Otherwise there is a link to a feeble piece trying to say that the Daily Mail in effect endorses Sharia law.

And one to The Heresiarch ruminating elegantly on whether it is misogynistic to disagree with emotional feminists:

McEwan appears to be saying that women – or at least women like her, feminists, whatever – are what generations of patriarchal oppressors have assumed that they are, irrational and emotionally (or hormonally) driven creatures incapable of abstract thought, or at least incapable of talking about ideas that affect them personally without becoming overwrought…