Previous 21 - 30 Next
In response to:

The Dead Soul of Adam Lanza

ksatifka Wrote: Dec 18, 2012 6:11 PM
Jim - Your notion of the '15 minutes of fame' is far too simplistic. Also, in a free society how can this not be reported? Do you want the heavy hand of gov't to control the media?
In response to:

The Dead Soul of Adam Lanza

ksatifka Wrote: Dec 18, 2012 6:08 PM
Correction: Last sentence should have read 'prevent that.'
In response to:

The Dead Soul of Adam Lanza

ksatifka Wrote: Dec 18, 2012 6:05 PM
If it is true that Lanza was on psych meds, then that means that he already DID receive professional care. Maybe he did not do anything in the past to warrant being institutionalized. It has been said that there is darkness in the heart of all men. Most, thankfully, keep things under control. However, no society can stop ALL crime. If we lived in a total police state that was able to prevent do that, I don't think most of us would want to live there.
In response to:

The Baby Bust Generation

ksatifka Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 6:09 PM
I should have phrased the last sentence "Bin Laden is dead - why is the Afghan War continuing?" I am not questioning that he is dead.
In response to:

The Baby Bust Generation

ksatifka Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 6:04 PM
Reginald10 - Happened to catch your comment while passing thru. Just so I'm not misunderstood, going after Bin Laden and his henchmen in Afghanistan was necessary and the right thing to do. Too bad GWB took his eye off the ball in his haste to invade Iraq, which had nothng to do with 9/11 in spite of your comment that "THEY' did it. That said, why is the Afghan War continuing - Bin Laden is dead?
In response to:

The Baby Bust Generation

ksatifka Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 3:27 PM
In the article, Jacoby refers to an article written by Thomas Friedman in the NY Times when he writes about the 'superstition' that 'the Earth is already too full.' I would encourage all readers of this article to also check out Friedman's essay. Friedman makes much more sense to me.
In response to:

The Baby Bust Generation

ksatifka Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 3:17 PM
Mr Jacoby's premise is that there is no limit to the Earth's carrying-capacity. In a finite world, this is a logical impossibility. I believe in the many scentists who know through study that there are limits to growth. Utopians like Jacoby are, I believe, very short-sighted, as are those who believe that we must increase immigration due to a declining birth rate. It is not necessarily a bad thing to cut down on consumption and learn to live with less.
In response to:

The Baby Bust Generation

ksatifka Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 2:51 PM
Could not agree with your analysis more, Jeff. However, the prejudice in the law against marriage, I believe, started with LBJ's hubristic 'Great Society' in the 60's. Both political parties know what the problem is (except maybe for those Dems on the very far left). The larger question is why neither party has had the guts to really tackle the problem. When GWB and the R's had control from 2001-06 they did nothing except start two unnecessary and unpaid for wars of empire. GWB told us to go shopping!
In response to:

The Baby Bust Generation

ksatifka Wrote: Dec 17, 2012 2:36 PM
Except for your large amount of children (which is unsustainable in the long run), I totally agree with your more communal, non-materialist ideals. However, the US economy is built on the exact opposite premise. As we have given away much of our industrial base, 70% of our economy is now based on consumption by consumers. If the US moves toward your model (which would be a good thing and will be ultimately necessary) it would spark a depression such as we have never seen before. However, I fear bad times are coming no matter what we do.
In response to:

The Irrelevance of "Right-to-Work" Laws

ksatifka Wrote: Dec 16, 2012 2:23 PM
Let's look at the other side of the 'right-to-work' argument. For example, around where I live, some construction companies choose to do their hiring through the construction union. They may have concluded that this is the best way to ensure quality labor. If that is their free choice, why is it any business of gov't to force them to consider hiring non-union workers?
Brave, Daniel! I don't usually read most Townhall writers as most seem to have pretty much the same ideas, but I was intrigued by the title of your essay. I knew that I hated the Mich right-to-work (for less) act, but you have made the case in an unusual way. Some companies (maybe GM and some other huge corps) may want to remain union shops, and that should be their right. Unions do sometimes help enforce discipline and they definitely reduce turnover, which is the bane of many employers. However, after you brilliantly stated your libertarian case for keeping the gov't out, you contradicted yourself by then saying you were glad that Mich passed the new law.
Previous 21 - 30 Next