Previous 11 - 20 Next
"...That same Wall Street Journal editorial asks whether many adult Gazans forfeited their right to 'innocent civilian' status by overwhelmingly electing a known terrorist cartel to represent them." Right after 9/11/2001, those Palestinians who celebrated the event by dancing in the streets of Gaza City had surely forfeited that right. The US would have been arguably more justified to go after them instead of Afgans and Iraqis.
In response to:

Does the Fed Really Believe What it Says?

jb168 Wrote: Jul 12, 2014 9:58 AM
Mish, you appear to interpret Occam's Razor as to say: "The simpletonest answer is most likely correct." Betting on stupidity is still a gamble, even if it appears to be right a good part of the time with today's government money ministers. It is not really a reasoned hypothesis!
In response to:

Romney Has Done Enough for the GOP

jb168 Wrote: Jul 10, 2014 8:15 AM
...and that's why I, a New Yorker, am giving Walker's campaign money for his re-election campaign. If the 2016 campaign for President has already started, this fall's elections are the first electoral test.
In response to:

Romney Has Done Enough for the GOP

jb168 Wrote: Jul 10, 2014 8:11 AM
You are absolutely right, Debra! Next step: winnow the field of all those great, competent GOP Governors. Who could be a good President? Any of them. So the most important criterion left is electability. Who among them could withstand anything the left is capable of dishing out these days (as opposed to those days, when Reagan ran) and come up standing with a smile? Who could, once in office, pursue a real conservative, restorative agenda and lead America back no matter what the left dishes out? Perhaps several of those named, but only one has proved his mettle in that (totally blue state) environment: Scott Walker. That's why the left is trying so desperately to defeat him in his bid for re-election as Governor of Wisconsin. They know that if he wins a solid victory there (again!), he will be the real front-runner who could go all the way. Then, he could pick a proven policy guy who's also a great governor; one who could provide some geographical and ethnic balance to boot. Walker-Jindal 2016, anyone?
In response to:

‘Hard’ Choices about America’s Future

jb168 Wrote: Jul 09, 2014 7:45 AM
Great post, Bob, as always. But I do with Hillary on one point: I do agree that she is "deeply disturbed".
"Americans today are entirely capable of understanding that there is more difference within racial groups than between racial groups." This statement is the very proof that race has no biological plausibility in regard to the human species: We are all too much alike. Sure, there are genetic differences between ethnic groups, just as there are among family members and non-identical twin siblings! It is a matter of degree, and people from all ethnicities are far too similar for the concept of race to be meaningful for the human race. Then there is the touchy subject of "intelligence": You say: "So the fact that there are differences in average IQ scores, or in some other testable characteristic, between races does not undercut the case against group discrimination, at least for the large majority of Americans." Really? As if such differences are genetic? What about the recent research in the US and UK, showing that blacks of African ancestry in the UK outperform whites, opposite to what happens in the US? Even on a group "bell curve" basis, differences in intelligence have now been proven to be cultural. Though passed down through generations, these differences are cultural; not genetic. I usually like your columns, Michael, as you are an excellent political scholar. But as an actual biological scholar and researcher myself (and one who is politically on your side), I would ask you to stick to politics!
In response to:

Declaration of Arms Before Independence

jb168 Wrote: Jul 08, 2014 8:13 AM
Speaking of the US Constution, where is Walker and the rest of the real Texas Rangers? By that I mean the very last sentence of Article I (Section 10): "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." Seems to me that the ongoing and accelerating invasion from Mexico--which the Obama Administration is encouraging instead of resisting--can be legally countered by military action by border states like Texas. Those who seek to avoid a Constitutional crisis fail to see--or refuse to see--that we already have one, and it is getting worse by the day. Impeachment is Constitutional but politically untenable; A state or states' taking up arms against a foreign invader is Constitutional and feasible, unless one really thinks that Obama can successfully order Texas National Guard troops to fire on Texans to stop them from doing so.
In response to:

Having a Laugh About Gluten

jb168 Wrote: Jul 07, 2014 8:28 AM
You guys make my point: You think science is what generally passes for science these days. In real science, reasoned hypothesis--making inductions and deductions from data and previously learned truths--are key to the process of discovering natural laws. Yes these days, such hypotheses are typically dismissed as mere "speculation", without the proof derived from "engineering" controlled experiments.
In response to:

Having a Laugh About Gluten

jb168 Wrote: Jul 06, 2014 12:27 PM
That's the trouble: We don't eat "everything": We throw away the bones and gristle! Why do you think chicken soup is always found to be restorative? It's the glycine from collagen from the bones in the soup. The trouble is not so much with what we are eating, or even how much; it's what we DON'T eat that is killing us!
In response to:

Having a Laugh About Gluten

jb168 Wrote: Jul 06, 2014 8:37 AM
"The reality is that food fads are food fads, science is never settled, and eating a well-balanced diet which includes fruits, vegetables, grains, meats, and yes some fats, will keep you in good stead unless you indulge in gluttony." Science does get settled when the truth is actually discovered. The trouble with a "balanced diet" is that most "balanced diets" are not balanced! 100 years ago we discovered we need to eat whole grains to avoid horrible deadly diseases like pellagra. (That's an example of settled science, btw.) But what about the whole chicken, cow, fish or pig? We eat the muscle and toss the bones, so our intake of the amino acid methionine is too high and that of glycine (mostly in the bones and gristle) too low. Glycine is the main regulator of inflammation, and glycine deficiency the main cause of most of the chronic inflammation that makes us sick and die these days from diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc. A glycine supplement like sweetamine fixes it. But the discovery is too new--and based on real science; the testing of real hypotheses--not the data mining that usually passes for science these days-- to have lots of studies. It will be years before the NIH recognizes this, but it is true and so easy to just try adding glycine to whatever diet you eat for a couple of weeks and see for yourself!
The reason Obama is out to obliterate the US as a nation-state is that he is part of the Star Trek generation. These socialists were raised with Star Trek representing the ideal future: the "United Federation of Planets" the monolithic democratic socialist regime covering all of earth and many other planets as well, having come about because mankind had evolved to transcend the primitive concept of the nation-state. Ironically, with all the fantastic permutations of life imagined to be out there beyond "the final frontier", The most unbelievable and impossible Star Trek concept of them all was this vast, democratic, socialist utopia. But to Obama's generation, it is a given. Ted Kennedy said it most succinctly: "Some look at the world as it is and ask "Why?"; We look at the world as it could be and ask "Why not?" Of course, all his fellow socialists in the Democrat party (and the media and academia) cheered these poetic words as inspiring. And of course, those who "see the world as it is" are those Troglodyte conservatives and Republicans. So here we are today, living in a political world ruled by those whose philosophy is rooted in fantasy instead of reality. God, help us!
Previous 11 - 20 Next