We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Saturday, October 24. 2015
Hunting, or defending the ranch? Photo via Gwynnie
Can You Get Smarter?
How Friendships Change in Adulthood - “We need to catch up soon!”
Doctors Agree: Obama’s Electronic Medical Records Mandate Sucks!
The Myth of Growth
Prosperity Is Good for Marriage, and Vice Versa
Mona Charen comments on the above
Campus Whiners Keep Winning
At her inauguration as Cornell’s new president, Elizabeth Garrett said, “We must heed the call to be radical and progressive.”
Another Climate Alarmist Lets It Slip: Why They Want To Scare You
Crock Boy: When the Media Gets Owned by a 14-year-old
Can a Venture Capitalist Jumpstart Illinois?
Free college tuition for everyone?
Clintons lie. It's their brand. It is assumed.
Free college tuition for everyone?
Tracked: Oct 25, 09:59
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Germany/asylum: several clever aphorisms come to mind, like the refugees have made their own beds, now they ought to lay in them.
The remedy to the damage and destruction, the murder most foul and the barbaric actions of Muslims can only be met with a force strong enough to overcome once and for all that which threatens all others.
Death sudden, overwhelming, final, no hesitation, and thorough by whatever means will accomplish the end result — elimination of the Evil.
A lot of folks think these thoughts; many are brave enough to utter them aloud. No matter how the issues are swaddled in euphemisms or rationalized away by saying "Oh, but we're not that barbaric", it still comes down to boots and steel.
We need only to look back on WWII. No matter the sidebar issues, the political scheming, the dance for Power and Control, our country did take up boots and steel and rid the world of Evil.
I chose the word Evil to describe the enemy which threatens the world. There is a moral, perhaps spiritual paradigm assumed. Can there be any doubt that the followers of Islam do harm to all other people?
A sword still in its scabbard is nothing but a club.
A man that does not fight for his freedom is nothing but a doormat.
I agree. We should have awoken from our slumber on 9/11. For awhile there I thought we did. But now we are back to dreaming of peace and hiding our heads from reality. Radical Islam is at war with us and if we don't wake up to that fact we will see our dreams turned into a nightmare. The "terrorist" are the proxy warriors of Islam. The radical muslims are the activists of Islam. But Islam itself IS the problem. Soon, a few months, a few years, Islam will nuke some great Western city. Maybe it will be Tel Aviv, maybe Paris or London, maybe New York City or Washington DC. No one can know where or when but there can be no doubt that this will happen. Ironically the only hope the West has is that they do it sooner rather than later. This seemingly crazy logic is simply that if they wait until they are strong and a viable nuclear power with foot soldiers in our homelands it may be impossible to overcome their attacks. If on the other hand they overplay their cards and nuke Tel Aviv before they have the power to dominate a world that turns against them we could crush them bombing them back to the 7th century. Our problem in this equation is we have chosen to wait for them to play their cards and wait for them to decide which great Western city must be destroyed before we do anything meaningful. I don't see much chance that our strategy will change so I believe we will all get to see a city destroyed live on TV in much the same way we all saw the twin towers hit, burn and fall.
"Death sudden, overwhelming, final*, no hesitation, and thorough by whatever means will accomplish the end result — elimination of the Evil."
what are you saying? shoot the islam immigrants or nuke tehran?
* death is generally final. just sayin'.
In the last 20 plus years or so there has been open warfare in a couple dozen countries around the globe. Essentially these have been Islamist wars to kill convert or enslave the infidels. This is now expanding into Western countries. If you look at the history of these 24 or so countries you will see that 50 years ago they were not islamist countries and their muslim population was either very small or non-existent. There was a coordinated purposeful effort to immigrate, infiltrate and dominate. This is what the West is looking at. It cannot be simply held off or negotiated away it must be destroyed/eliminated. It must be done within those countries where muslims are immigrating and directly with those countries, like Iran, where the impetus and intent is based. There is no halfway measure that will work, I think present day Israel is proof of this as their very own peaceful muslim citizens (who enjoy the most freedom and economic opportunities of any middle East country) listen to the siren song of Islam and willingly choose to kill Jews because they are Jews. It will happen in every country in Europe and in Canada and the U.S. It is the future unless stopped.
The solution is a tough pill to swallow for you and I and everyone raised in the West. But it is either to openly go to war with Islamists and drive them out of those 24 countries where they have taken over or gained considerable ground and to throw them out of Europe and the West. AND to destroy their homelands and any resistance (which means kill anyone who resists) and leave them impoverished isolated and without the ability to build weapons or deliver them. Destruction, total destruction of them and their countries, bomb them back to the 7th century.
I recognize that no one wants to do that and that very few would agree with what I have just suggested. But understand the alternative is WW III on their terms and at their convenience. I also recognize that what I have suggested has zero chance of serious consideration never mind implementation so therefore we are all fated to get up one Monday morning and turn on CNN and watch a mushroom cloud of a nuclear weapon rising over one of our largest cities. 2 - 8 million killed in a heartbeat. And the irony will be there will still be those who will say it isn't "Islam" it is just a handful of terrorists. The next day the video will show Palestinians and other peoples celebrating the bombing in the streets. Imams gloating on TV. Restaurants providing food on the street to muslims as offering to Muhammad "peace be upon him" to honor the brave terrorist.
so, do you want to shoot all the islams or nuke tehran?
Yes, Donny, I am saying just that. Both. We learned what worked in WWII against the Japs. This cannot be dismissed as a racist policy, the conversation is much bigger than that.
As the Japanese invaded and conquered other Pacific nations they were ready with the bulldozers and open graves. Most of the victims were still alive when they were buried.
Different dynamics against the Germans, unless you want to stretch the concept of "racism" to fit the war against White Germanic people. I'd just as soon leave that out and look at all the millions shoved into the ovens. That evil enough for you?
Nowadays we are all squeamish, don't want war, don't want bloodshed. I sit at my keyboard every day and express moral outrage against Muslims. Even with two towers and almost four thousand lives lost, "Oh, we mustn't offend them, there are some good Muslms." How big a price do we need to pay before we stop the advances of an invading army?
While all is being said, not much is being done.
To address a scourge such as Islam we must think in terms of extermination.
Think: Hiroshima and Nagasaki;
Collateral damage? Every time some unfortunate guy gets beheaded and the video goes viral?
Really, collateral damage? You're worried some kids or old people are gonna get killed? When they kill one of ours, we kill one hundred of theirs.
It has been seen and experienced in most every other country in the world, from the "super-powers" to the Third World yocky-dock countries: Islam is not a good thing. It benefits nobody, apparently not even the adherents.
We are all listening to rumors that something bad is gonna happen. Instead of cowering and hoping that it won't happen near us we should be fire-bombing Baghdad and other concentrations of Muslim terrorists. Can't find 'em? Enlarge the target area.
you want to nuke tehran? you talk about a "war against White Germanic people" on one hand and the "extermination" of islams on the other?
"when they kill one of ours, we kill one hundred of theirs"... how did the Lidice massacre work out for stormfront the nazis? I don't know who this "we" is, but don't include me.
"I sit at my keyboard every day and express moral outrage"
yes, that's the root of your problem.
Typical Liberal tactics. Can't refute the message so try to invalidate the messenger
.Makes me wonder which side you're on, Donny the Bear Jew Donowiitz.
Yawn, I'm getting bored talking to you.
chasmatic: Makes me wonder which side you're on, Donny the Bear Jew Donowiitz.
Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz appears to call them like he sees them — with a dash of grump perhaps.
yes I understand and Donny is probably a pretty good guy. I'd like to engage in some conversation with him that's not like a pissing contest.
Not wrong, just different.
I know I can be surly myielf, sometimes, I gotta mind my manners.
Donny, if you read this comment consider it a peace offering. Neither one of us is "right" or "wrong". I think we're two hard-headed guys and we can get along without bare-knuckled fighting.
Whaddaya say, peace?
should be fire-bombing Baghdad and other concentrations of Muslim terrorists. Can't find 'em? Enlarge the target area.
Unfortunately you may be right, you should join us in hoping another way can be found.
If Iraq, Lebanon and Iran were once far more western and secular than they are now, then perhaps they can be turned around. Not without a lot of blood, but better it be their blood and effort turning their own societies back from the abyss. The direction they are headed to now is towards war with cornered and innately more powerful nations.
not much is being done. Yes, not much has been done, effectively. But, although the thing was badly handled and the effort abandoned; George W. Bush has to be given credit for what was his declared attempt to establish a secular, successful Muslim state in the center of the region. Whether it was his right to drag American into the attempt is another question. (Afghanistan was (and is) a complete mistake to stay on after delivering a short, sharp rebuke.) Japan, Germany and S. Korea all had years of American aid and protection, especially South Korea. Decades in which to develop a government based on the rule of law and create a prosperous society and ally. In the Mid East the fighting never really stopped, unlike Europe after WWII and Korea. We walked away, and it doesn't matter if one man decided, we all acquiesced.
If we do, on one fine day, utilize our ability to destroy most of the Middle East, it won't be a victory. Not when we are involved in the creation of so much of the chaos.
John, we nad opportunity when the towers went down: hot-blooded retaliation, overkill, lightening war and don't stop until we get to Mecca. After the heat died down we still could have delivered ultimatums - if you don't do this and that by a specific deadline we'll send the heavy boys in, turn some sand into glass, whatever. Hold Muslims accountable for their actions and responsible for the actions of the jihadists. Economic sanctions, political pressure.
Oh, wait. We need a strong leader for that.
And, as I understand it, that was exactly the response and the war that Osama Bin Laden was attempting to start. His end goal, a total war between the entire Muslim world and the West.
Incidentally, I think he was nuts. Him, not you, please be clear on that. But (personally) I'd like to sit and think about it before I walked the path a guy like that marked out in advance.
I agree that we shouldn't have made it our first priority to bend over backward apologizing to Islam for pointing guns in their direction and treating all the members of the House of Saud then in the US as special VIP's to be protected at all costs.
The lowest point in the whole travesty was the nationwide broadcast with Julie Roberts reciting the submission to Allah.
In the war for Iraq that followed, the first thing that went wrong was there was never a Nation of Iraq. (What are we doing here, again?) And after kicking the living shit out of Afghanistan until somebody called it, "That's enough, the dude won't do that again without thinking twice'. And then leaving the land called 'The Graveyard of Empires' for good. After that selective drone strikes (never-ending) and spot SF raids. And suck up every dollar that Iran and the families of the Saudi attackers have in the West, and keep it.
When Iran uses it's nuclear armament (thanks again, George and Barry!), then we'll undoubtedly return fire. How effective that exchange will be will depend on the next election. (President Donald Trump pushing the button, "Your Fired!". Whether you and I see it depends on where in America that/those weapons go off.
Oh damn! Open parentheses... I'm in trouble now.
I'm going to go with 'defending the ranch'. And smartly dressed.
What happens when academic "issues" are politicized by either side?
Upon reading the article about college growth the author misstates a real fact. The author states that the GI Bill was primarily used by veterans who would have gotten to school anyhow--WRONG. The GI Bill has always been an important incentive to get men home from war and back into society in a positive and meaningful way. The sons of wealth do not go to war. The GI Bill probably did add to the economic growth of this nation even though no "research" has been done upon which to base this claim. The boys who left the farm or lower income urban areas to go to war did not immediately return to either the farm or the lower income status. On the one hand (farmer) that young man had expanded his experience and understood the greater advantage of not living an isolated life in rural America. On the other hand the young man returning from war was not willing to go back to a low income urban community without "putting up a good fight". That is to say he had "done his bit" and now eagerly accepted the carrot offered to him to improve his life.
Both of these men built up a LARGER, more well informed strata of our society that moved forward with enthusiasm AND NOW ALSO AN EDUCATION.
If you want to open technical schools for those who are unable to read or write--fine, but then the problem that must be addressed is the failure of K-12.
Not the GI Bill! If you want to separate technical training from university education I am ok with that as long as you don't create a system in which a kid who wakes up at 18 or 19 does not get locked into being a "technician" or a "plumber" all of his life. How are you going to do that? I have a great appreciation for Junior college, or sometimes called community college.
"The sons of wealth do not go to war."
be careful about bullshit slander. in fact, lay off the bullshit entirely.
Hey, Donny, express your opinion as you may, but be respectful of others'.
I'm calling out a bullshit claim as bullshit.
"The sons of wealth do not go to war."
sons of wealth who went to war:
G.H.W. Bush -- bomber shot down by Japanese
Joe Kennedy Jr. -- KIA over France
Jack Kennedy -- wounded in action in the Pacific
Theodore Roosevelt Jr. -- died on active duty in France
FDR's sons served in WW2
John Eisenhower, wartime service in WW2 and Korea
three or four generations of McCain, the last of whom was a POW
correct me if I'm wrong, I could add hundreds of names to that list.
Hey Bear Jew, I didn't think Maggie's Farm needed a bouncer.
"... in fact, lay off the bullshit entirely." Good advice for you to heed.
I don't know what kind of crowd you hang around with but where I come from people lose teeth talking like that.
seriously, kid, trash servicemen on your own blahg.
No one is trashing the military or anyone in a service profession. As a matter of fact, people of wealth and power usually have been able to escape the front lines should they so CHOOSE. Many, many have not and have served with distinction.
Your language could invite more of a civilized discussion rather than a heated argument. That's all.
I believe you're reading "[t]he sons of wealth do not go to war" in an overly generous and wholly unwarranted way.
the fact is, the statement is flat out wrong. "sons of wealth" in fact do go to war, and No. 3's asshatted comment is a gross insult to the memories of those who didn't come home. I identified some prominent examples, there are thousands of others who are are not public figures.
for several reasons ... three exactly ... I have a hair trigger response to this kind of gratuitous slur.
Donny, you need to get your headlights adjusted. I served Army six years during Viet Nam, blowing things up and killing people.
I'm not trashing any military so relax yourself.Don't get your knickers in a knot old boy.
Think of it this way: All those GIs going to college were not in the job market, which didn't have room for them until they'd graduated.
After WWI, soldiers were dumped into the economy resulting in widespread unemployment and disillusion among the veterans. The Roosevelt Administration was determined to help returning WWII soldiers integrate back into the economy. It was one of the most success government programs in history, and led to the Affluent Society.
End of World War I, short recession and then boom times. The Roaring Twenties. Economic and technological growth.
The WPA, part of the New Deal, came along too late to help returning soldiers and before they knew it we were tooling up for WWII.
Adjusting from war time to peace time was an enormous shock for the U.S. economy. Factories focused on war time production had to shut down or retool their production.
A short Post–World War I recession occurred in the United States following Armistice Day, but this was followed by a growth spurt. The recession that occurred in 1920, however, was also affected by the adjustments following the end of the war, particularly the demobilization of soldiers. One of the biggest adjustments was the re-entry of soldiers into the civilian labor force. In 1918, the Armed Forces employed 2.9 million people. This fell to 1.5 million in 1919 and a mere 380,000 by 1920. The impact on the labor market was most striking in 1920, when the civilian labor force increased by 1.6 million people, or 4.1%, in a single year (though smaller than post–World War II demobilization in 1946 and 1947, it is otherwise the largest documented one-year labor force increase). In the early 1920s, both prices and wages changed more quickly than today, and thus employers may have been quicker to offer reduced wages to returning troops, hence lowering their production costs, and lowering their prices.
Same thing happened after WWII. Returning GIs were able to buy a first-time home or go to college.
The "Eisenhower Years" were a time of growth.
The New Deal produced a political realignment, making the Democratic Party the majority (as well as the party that held the White House for seven out of nine Presidential terms from 1933 to 1969), with its base in liberal ideas, the white South, traditional Democrats, big city machines, and the newly empowered labor unions and ethnic minorities.
While I'm at it, let's kick the can about Social Security, heh heh.
'scuse me BD, I don't mean to be hijacking the thread; one thing led to another and, well here I am, within the length of my cable tow; but, yeah, I am drifting a bit.
John the River: I think I found that parenthesis you were dangling.
Our Social Security
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program.
1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary;
No longer Voluntary
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program;
Now 7.65% on the first $90,000
3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year;
No longer tax deductible
4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
general operating fund would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program and no other Government program;
Under Johnson the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Under Clinton & Gore up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed
October 22 — Crock Boy: When the Media Gets Owned by a 14-year-old
Where’s the clock?
October 23 — Ahmed Got His Clock Back!
Certainly they have the Qatarian equivalent to Wally world where he could get another one.
The costumes were better back in the day. Creeptastic!