Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

Here.

Here.

It's a SONY Cyber-shot DSC-HX60V. Click to enlarge. It has 20.4 megapixels and a 30x optical zoom. Scotland won't know what hit it.

Addendum: Here is a review.

To the editor:

In describing presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump’s troubled relationship with the facts, I think Doyle McManus is really asking if [sic; should be "whether"] the truth matters. ("How brazenly can a candidate lie and get away with it? We're going to find out with Donald Trump," Opinion, May 18)

Of course it does. All journalists can do is uncover the truth and expose it. That’s been enough to take down a president, turn people against a war and change laws. That’s powerful stuff.

The cumulative effect of repeated truth-telling will have an impact—not with everyone, of course, but with enough people. Don’t despair, just get the truth out there—over and over.

Joanne Zirretta, Aliso Viejo

Note from KBJ: I agree wholeheartedly. Journalists should get busy uncovering the truth about Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, two of the most corrupt politicians in American history.

Oh. My. God. This is too funny to be true. Jonah Goldberg tells us today that he can't support Donald Trump because his boss, the National Review, forbids it. See here. If you don't believe me, read Goldberg's own words (italics in original):

And so it was an interesting focus group, a kind of microcosm of what is happening across the conservative movement. There were some true Trumpers and anti-Trumpers, but there were many more people who simply think supporting Trump is making the best of a bad situation. I understand that position and I have sympathy for it. Indeed, despite the harping, carping, and barking claims from bullying party hacks and Twitter pests, the truth is I really don’t have much of a problem with normal Republican voters who feel they have to make a choice between two less-than-perfect-options.

As an institution, National Review has different priorities. As Rich Lowry explained on the boat, we have a sense of custodial obligation to the conservative movement. The dilemma for us isn’t simply, “What should I do with my vote?” it’s, “What should we say and write?” That’s why in 1960 we didn’t endorse Kennedy or Nixon, because neither candidate met the bar we set for a conservative candidate. Sometimes we grade on a curve, but sometimes the curve can only be bent so far. I’m sure most of the editors voted for one or the other. But who cares about that?

Note the implication: Goldberg could very well (for all we know) be a Trump supporter, though he would have to keep quiet about it so as not to anger his boss (which might result in his having to find another job). Wouldn't it be awful if your boss ordered you to support (or not support) a particular candidate, on the ground that your doing so would be good for business? I would quit in an instant. Apparently, Goldberg has neither principles nor self-respect. He happily does his boss's bidding. God forbid that he should put his conscience before his career.

Here's the funny part. William F. Buckley, the founder of National Review, formulated, enunciated, and popularized what has come to be known as the Buckley Rule. Here it is, in Buckley's own words: "National Review will support the rightwardmost viable candidate."

How does that not require Goldberg and other employees of the National Review to support Donald Trump? There are only two (three, if you count Bernie Sanders) candidates remaining, and surely Trump is the rightwardmost of the two (three). He's obviously viable, for he's leading in several national polls. The upshot of these musings is that Goldberg needs to get right not only with Trump, but with his former boss, William F. Buckley. He (Goldberg) is a disgrace to conservatism, driven by an inexplicable (pathological?) hatred of the presumptive Republican nominee, who, I might add, vanquished 16 rivals (including, presumably, some whom Goldberg supported and would have been happy to support in the general-election campaign).

Will Goldberg come to his senses and put principle over expediency? Don't hold your breath. He's a careerist.

William Kristol is rapidly becoming the laughingstock of American politics.

Does this man not realize that, come January 2017, it's either President Donald Trump or President Hillary Clinton? So he doesn't like Trump. Who cares? Does he like Clinton? Does he want Clinton nominating federal judges for at least the next four years? I didn't like John McCain or Mitt Romney, but I voted for them. What we're learning is that many establishment Republicans don't know how to play fair. They act as though they're entitled (by virtue of what?) to choose the Republican nominee every four years. They're acting like petulant kindergartners.

Focus III (1972).

Here are highlights from today's stage of the Giro d'Italia.

Here.