Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Do Statistical Disparities Mean Injustice?

jb168 Wrote: Sep 24, 2014 8:14 AM
The problem here is that the Left has commandeered the language to frame the issue in terms of "injustice". Just accepting terms like "disparity" and "inequality" lose the debate before it starts: Diversity of income (not "inequality") is a natural feature of a healthy free market society. Let's stop talking like the left!! (And if you are a man trying to "wrap your mind around that", you are already thinking like a feminist: Quite naturally, women wrap their minds around ideas; men penetrate them.
In response to:

Two Anti-Choice Parties

jb168 Wrote: Sep 24, 2014 8:05 AM
Libertarianism only works in a virtuous society. Only if the public overall subscribes to the same moral code will unfettered freedom produce a livable society. At this point, widespread moral confusion leads to political confusion. For example, it's not about "banning gay marriage", it's really about stopping the overly intrusive government from changing the language. Without even a common language, there is no nation anymore. Without defensible borders, there is no nation anymore. And without a common moral code, the nation necessarily devolves into one kind of dictatorship or another. God, help us!
At least there are no lingering doubts about Mr. Obama's birthplace: We all now know he is the President from Hell.
In response to:

The Other Scottish Decision

jb168 Wrote: Sep 19, 2014 11:34 AM
Well said as usual. But why conservatives could use a bit more "focused intellectual clarity". F'rinstance, instead of calling "income inequality" a "thoroughly phony issue", why not just call the object of discussion by its right name? After all, income diversity is a natural feature of a healthy economic landscape in a free society. Only Socialists and Communists find anything wrong with income diversity, and would give it a pejorative name like "inequality". But hope springs eternal that some good ideas might get picked up from guys like me sitting in the cheap seats.
In response to:

Paul Greenberg: Barack Hussein Obama

jb168 Wrote: Sep 19, 2014 11:08 AM
At least there is no lingering controversy regarding Mr. Obama's birthplace: We all now know he is the President from Hell.
Right you are, Diana, as always. It is disheartening when the solution to these "American" problems is so simple: The Islamists--from ISIS in Iraq to Boko Haram in Nigeria--and even Putin in the Ukraine, are all fighting over energy. If the US were merely to unleash fracking on federal lands, build the Keystone XL pipeline and stop the stupid war on coal, all our enemies would be deprived of their most potent weapon: the value of their oil and gas. But alas, the Islamists know how to manipulate the American public and body politic, with you-tube beheadings, etc., which pours gasoline on the fire. Unfortunately, no one in power here wants us to come to our senses because the continued and escalating conflicts serve the interests of the greenies--who want to stop the use of all carbon-based energy--and the defense industry--whose economic interest is even more obvious. What an unholy alliance! Between islam, the environmental movement and the military-industrial complex, we are toast if we don't wake up soon!
In the interest of helping to wake up the nation, please consider re-publishing this article--and more, from other authors as well--this coming January, 2015. That will be the sesquicentennial, the 150th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's 2nd inaugural address. Among among those prophetic words are these references to the Matthew Gospel, in reference to the Civil War fought over slavery: "Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." With regard to our nation's current situation, one might ask: "What about every drop of prenatal blood drawn with the suction aspirator and the curette?"
But the very worst of the infrastructure initiatives of the left is the so-called "smart grid", a new electrical grid system which will track individual users down to every light bulb and rinse cycle. What is so crashingly stupid about this is that the grid is indeed obsolete, i.e., there should no longer even BE one, for residences, at least. Now that small diesel engines are cheap and efficient, they should replace oil burners in every house that needs substantial heat in the winter. The diesel engine's cooling system would be same radiators that circulate heated water, while the engine--operating efficeintly on good ol' #2 home heating oil--generates electricity for free. It's called "co-generation", a term we haven't seen much since the 1970s, when it was only suitable for large apartment buildings. But I guess a fundamental characteristic of big government is the flouting of all kinds of natural law, from the natural family to free-market economics. Why should the Second Law of Thermodynamics be any different?
In response to:

A Bird's-Eye View of Extinction

jb168 Wrote: Sep 05, 2014 9:58 AM
There were massive efforts undertaken, starting in the 1880's, to save the passenger pigeon from extinction. But they failed, because the passenger pigeon was unusual among animals in that a fertile female could usually only produce one offspring per year. Any other species come to mind, numbering in the billions--too many, according to some--in danger of extinction from mass murder in one form or another, because they can only produce one offspring in a year? As the centenary bell tolls for the passenger pigeon, consider for whom else the bell tolls.
In response to:

Liberal Feminism: You Are What You Bleat

jb168 Wrote: Sep 04, 2014 8:52 AM
Somebody has to say it, Ryan, and you did it very well!
I am perplexed: I never realized that a restaurant owned by a chicken could serve pork!
Previous 11 - 20 Next