Previous 11 - 20 Next
...not to mention that the main thrust of the First Amendment is precisely to protect political speech in the public square!
I would like to see 9/11 remembered for being the anniversary of the most decisive military victory of the War of 1812. Not the Battle of New Orleans (which was actually fought after the war was officially over), I mean the Battle of Plattsburgh (NY), where US Admiral McDonough had the best of a superior British fleet on Lake Champlain on 9/11/1814. Were it not for that victory, the US would likely have ceded New England back to old England, with the Hudson River the dividing line. Then again, maybe we'd be better off now without New England...
Exactly right, cross bones.
A very good and detailed analysis, but I think it's really simpler than it seems: There are two national electorates in the US; one for the Presidential years, and one for the off years. The latter is a boulean subset of the former, and it is comprised of more of the white male and higher income voters. That really tells most of the story. The rest of the story is really about how women and those with a poor primary education are more easy to manipulate emotionally (so more likely to vote Democrat), whereas the men and those with a better education vote more in line with rationality and common sense (so more likely to vote Republican).
The trouble is, the Obama-Reid-Pelosi gang literally views corporate America (and the entire private sector) as the enemy of "the people". We are living through the 6th year of having put Bolsheviks in power. Until we get rid of them--if indeed we can--we're just SOL.
In response to:

Dear Uncle Sam ta

jb168 Wrote: Aug 29, 2014 11:51 AM
I'm all for cutting out the middleman, i.e., the federal government! All that is needed to send the US economy into overdrive is to lower the corporate tax rate--even modestly, from 35% down to 25%, and approve Keystone and fracking on federal lands. This will cut two of the biggest expense items for corporate America (even without repealing obamacare). The only problem is, the guy in the White House (not to mention the majority in the Senate) view corporate America quite literally as the enemy of "the people". So for now, we're SOL.
Ann, your last column was a home run, but this was a grand slam! Thank God we still have enough freedom of speech in this country to permit voices like yours to keep us God-fearing people from falling into egoism and narcissism. Come to think of it, this is exactly the sort of function served by priests and ministers in their Sunday sermons to their flocks. Now there's some irony for you: Ann Coulter is actually serving as a Christian minister to America's Christian community! Truth is indeed stranger than fiction!
The experimental treatment (ZMapp) which will likely save Brantley's life, is really nbd: It's just a high-tech, genetically engineered version of what is called "passive immunity". They took blood from survivors of Ebola, isolated the 3 best antibodies to the virus, then genetically engineered it so they could make them (monoclonal antibodies) by the kilo. It will likely push the fatality rate down close to zero--even if the disease breaks out here--just as it will push the company's stock (Mapp Biopharmaceutical Inc) into the stratosphere, with all the hype. Just wait...
In response to:

WWI Demons Live

jb168 Wrote: Aug 07, 2014 10:26 AM
No movie portrays the idiocy of WWI better than the Marx Brothers' "Duck Soup".
I saw the Karl's question, and concluded it was a planted softball.
In response to:

Truth On Our Side?

jb168 Wrote: Jul 30, 2014 10:42 AM
All very interesting, but largely unnecessarily complicated. Reason is founded on certain axioms; "truths we hold to be self evident." In my view, the most foundational is the principle of contradiction. The leftists have abandoned this principle. 20 years ago, conservatives were amazed at the capacity of the brilliant mind of Bill Clinton to "compartmentalize". He would have a meeting and promise one group something, and minutes later, promise to another group, something completely contradictory. Now, this happens so matter-of-factly in our political discourse, that we no longer seem to recognize it as irrational. One place to spot such absurdity is in the confusion of language; the total disregard for the obvious meaning of words. You mentioned the Harvard professor who suggested modesty in dress as a way to decrease sexual assault. At my university, about 15 years ago, a directive came out on sexual harassment, which included the assertion: "Provocative dress is not an invitation to sexual harassment" (paraphrased a bit). It is as if the authors have no clue what the word "provocative" means, nor it's root: "to provoke". Thus much of our public conversation has degenerated into mindless drivel. But the clearest and most accurate distinction I can think of between the way liberals and conservatives think was made by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. He was known for soaring rhetoric, and in one speech he said: "Some see the world as it is and ask 'Why?'. We see the world as it could be and ask 'Why not?'" Of course, this was a thunderous applause line, every liberal in the audience buying it hook, line and sinker and identifying with the latter worldview. But what does it mean? It means--quite accurately--that conservatives have their worldview rooted in reality and liberals have their worldview rooted in fantasy. What follows the pursuit of the latter is now playing out all over the domestic and world stage, but unfortunately, not quite plain enough for all of us to see.
Previous 11 - 20 Next