1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Supply Side Contraceptives

Kenneth L. Wrote: Jul 12, 2014 8:18 AM
"Paul Krugman and others on the left routinely sneer at the idea that you can actually increase government revenues by cutting tax rates. (Turns out most of the time you can’t, but in some cases you can.)" Mr. Goodman, this is a gratuitous opening, irrelevant to the discussion of healthcare. And it is misleading. "...most of the time you can't..."? Over what period have you studied this? Next tax year? Next five tax years? At a time when our economy is being suffocated by government, I wish you would think about this statement, and give it some more study before making a comment like this one.
The mere fact that Kerwick has us scratching our heads and commenting means that he has written a worthwhile column. I haven't read the Goldberg column because I've been away for a couple of weeks, but I have thoughts about this column: 1) American exceptionalism and "American Exceptionalism (AE)" are two different things. The idea that the U.S. is exceptional has value, just as the idea that the Judeo-Christian ethic has value. Children thrive in families with both a mother and father. Individuals thrive when they follow the many little chestnuts in "Poor Richard's Almanac." And we appear to be heading to hell in a handbasket as we abandon some of the time-tested principles that make us exceptional. 2) As an anthropologist, as opposed to a historian, I probably take a more generic view of the discussion than does Kerwick. But he seems to me to have virtually set up a straw man by italicizing AE into something ideological, and then alleging that it is an ideology. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. 3) To the extent that the U.S. has succeeded in providing a moral example to the world (and the success has clearly been mixed), we should recognize the contribution in our historical analysis. We would certainly not agree with Obama that American exceptionalism exists only to the same extent that it exists with respect to every other country on the planet. No, Mr. President, that's not true. We have used our good example and military and economic power and influence as forces for good against evil, hokey as that might sound to you and your fellow Ivy-covered, elitist (dare I say progressive) travelers. If the concept has been coopted by neo-cons, or anyone else, what else is new? How about religious freedom being coopted by atheists? Arguments made by the coopting political interests should simply be exposed in our writing as the logical fallacies that they inevitably are.
In response to:

The Education Establishment's Success

Kenneth L. Wrote: Jun 25, 2014 8:44 AM
I can see the eyes rolling on MSNBC. But Professor Williams is exactly right. This was an overt strategy that has succeeded beyond anyone's wildest imaginings. Five minutes on the Internet reading about Bill Ayers will enlighten anyone who doubts the absolute truth of this. I just hope that as the world devolves into chaos, anarchy and violence, Ayers and his cohort are satisfied with the result. I can't imagine what kind of sickness explains doing this to one's children. I've said before in TH.com comments, it is as unlikely that another United States of America would evolve to lead the world out of this chaos as it is that life would evolve from primordial soup into human beings again if we became extinct.
In response to:

A Bitter After-Taste

Kenneth L. Wrote: Jun 18, 2014 8:36 AM
And, Corbett, if you come back here and read what I wrote I understand that you may pretend you haven't. Or you may simply blow back with some more nonsense from the U.N. inspection process, the most toothless process known to mankind. If you want to engage in a discussion of the real issues, please do as I suggest and read the Senate Intelligence Committee report.
In response to:

A Bitter After-Taste

Kenneth L. Wrote: Jun 18, 2014 8:28 AM
Corbett Wrote: "Kenneth: In case you have trouble understanding what the UN inspectors said, I'll translate it: Bush lied -- people died." Corbett, thank you for your response. And vesuvius, your contribution is appreciated, also. Corbett, you may think that you have proven a point of some kind, but I doubt it. You are perpetrating a fraud. I mentioned the Senate Select Committee report, a post facto report that takes into account the feckless efforts and political rambling of the U.N. This is obvious if you simply recall the process: our intelligence made a finding, we presented it to the U.N. and the U.N. authorized action. Then our internal process was concluded, which, again, included the support of Clinton, Edwards, Biden, et al. If you look at the specific issue of yellow cake purchases, and Joe Wilson's willful change of position and confusion of the timing, you know that it was not at all certain that Hussein did not present a clear and present security threat. Hindsight is 20/20, but the only guy that got it right from the start was Lincoln Chaffee (and how ironic is that?!?). You are completely wrong. Calling our president a liar was then and is now a gross injustice, and is a disservice to the country.
In response to:

A Bitter After-Taste

Kenneth L. Wrote: Jun 17, 2014 3:52 PM
Corbett Wrote: "We know he had WMD at one time because WE sold them to him. We even sold him weaponized anthrax. But we also know he destroyed them and we knew that BEFORE we invaded." I'm calling you on this one, Corbett, if you come back. What is your reference, your "TINY amount of research"? My recollection of events is that you are completely wrong. Hilary Clinton and John Edwards both went to contacts in the "intelligence community" and reported that the intelligence was sound. And the whole Joe Wilson fiasco pointed out clearly that the intelligence did not change until after the State of the Union Speech. I suggest you read the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on this whole episode again. The "Bush lied, people died" is one of the most egregious falsehoods in my lifetime. You are repeating a tired old falsehood, debunked many times, and the only reason you can continue to believe it is because the so-called "mainstream" media has never bothered to report the plain truth about the WMD issue.
In response to:

Rubbish: Emails Don’t Get Lost

Kenneth L. Wrote: Jun 17, 2014 9:41 AM
HIlary! The Paris Hilton of politics.
As Mike Adams explained so clearly in his column today, this turns logic on its head. To coin a phrase, "that's rich." It will be a cold day in hell before progressive/liberal/Democrat fascists believe in "live and let live." THAT'S THE VERY PROBLEM! The government should keep its nose our of marriage, church, education, etc., etc. ALTOGETHER. Problem solved.
David3036 Wrote: "Gays are not a protected group in 29 states, so the homophobes still have the upper hand." David, this takes us back several steps in the development of the "gay rights" issue, but your post begs for a rational response. If a gay person presents him/herself to me wanting housing, a job, admission to college, or service at my lunch counter, how do I know that person is gay? The problem with this whole issue is that it is pressing for cultural normalization for what is obviously abnormal behavior. And there is no question is almost anybody's mind anymore that we should be tolerant of those different from ourselves, love the sinner, etc. But there is no logical argument that gay people need protection of their "rights." We already have older people in Florida setting up housekeeping simply to get survivor benefits under pension plans, and health insurance as spouses. Now same-sex couples will be able to perpetrate the same fraud.
In response to:

The Ghost of John Edwards

Kenneth L. Wrote: Jun 16, 2014 7:19 AM
This column upsets me. What "the people" need to realize is that this NC candidate is not unique, but actually increasingly common. The inconsistent and illogical positions of liberals are becoming accepted because of the indoctrination children receive in public schools, some private schools, and nearly all colleges and universities. Bill Ayers and his ilk, applying the methods of Saul Alinsky, are winning this war against the United States. And many of my Ivy League educated friends don't seem to see this as a problem!
1 - 10 Next