Previous 11 - 20 Next
"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!
My question is, where are the great conservative border state governors, like Rick Perry? Fellow Conservatives, we can complain all we want about the federal government, but we know the cavalry will not come. But, our beloved Constitution has an immediate remedy for this: the very last sentence of Article 1: "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." That last line of Article I, section 10 says it all. The states have the explicit right to defend their borders if "actually invaded" and/or the cavalry is not sent in a timely fashion (or at all). Why isn't Chuck Norris calling for the mobilization of the real Texas Rangers? Instead of Rick Perry trying to run for President, to replace a rogue who is exceeding his de jure powers, he should exercise the de jure powers he already has to stop this! (Not to mention Jan Brewer and Susana Martinez).
The political atmosphere is so toxic these days, that imposition of Alexander's suggestion is bound--of a certainty--to lead to the statists' gaining the ability to incarcerate political opponents on grounds of mental illness, just like in the good ol' USSR. But you also need to be balanced in your statistics: While mass shooters are overwhelmingly individuals with severe mental illness, the overwhelming majority of people with severe mental illness function normally in society, thanks to a host of true miracle drugs that began to be available only in the 1950s, and which have been dramatically improved in the decades since. Finally, the real gorilla in the room is the "gun free zone". Much less publicity is garnered by incidents in which the would-be mass murderer is stopped in his tracks by an armed civilian. And did not the VA Tech incident happen the very next semester after the University instituted a ban on gun carrying on campus, even by those students and staff with concealed carry permits?
In response to:

Keeping the Liberal World Order

jb168 Wrote: Jun 20, 2014 8:05 AM
This may be your most brilliant piece yet, Diana. Now I finally understand the various components of the muddled political mix America has endured since my own undergraduate days at Yale (when the Seale trial took center stage).
A god piece until almost the end, Barkoukis. Your third paragraph from the end hints at corruption, for which I suppose you have some evidence? Specifically, you are suggesting that Jindal's interest in a presidential run has dictated his changed stance on Common Core (and also that he is being less than truthful about it). One has nothing to do with the other, unless Jindal be corrupt. Now, just because this would be a common form of corruption that is embodied by perhaps a majority of politicians, to throw that charge out there without evidence--even though thinly disguised in the third person "some are calling..."--seems to be simply innuendo born of cynicism. You could have avoided this implication by saying that "his detractors" or "his opponents are calling". Or does this mean, Barkoukis, that you have another favorite in the Presidential sweepstakes, and don't want to miss an opportunity to cut down the opposition? (SOME might suggest that, you know.)
Nonsense. The sentence is perfect, right down to the lack of a comma after "South Carolina". Are you a product of Common Core, Enn?
Previous 11 - 20 Next