Editor Sarah Worthman email@example.com
2:05 pm on Monday, April 29, 2013
Hi Lyle, long time, no blog. Me thinks your thesis this time falls short for practical reasons: 1) there are many white males who understand the coming demographic changes are inevitable, know they did not create the concept of human majority privilege, and understand what comes around goes around, 2) most of the other white males who might be inclined to openly resist these changes are not paying much attention now and thus are not inclined to do much about it. They'll react when it hits them in the face.
I take issue with some of your reasoning too: strengthening the integrity of the election system trumps the ease of voting in my mind - especially during a period of frequent close elections, like many nation-states we have strict immigration laws except we have done a poor job executing them, and the “anchor baby” amendment was created to insure the citizenship of children born to slaves, not those who have entered illegally - I'm not aware of any other country that grants citizenship to the children of people who enter illegally. I think the majority of us are happy with the separation of church and state in the US, would like to see the existing constitution and laws better enforced, and instinctively applaud diversity, equal opportunity, and merit. So me thinks your thesis focuses on a tiny but loud minority of Americans, when you might do better tabulating the number of countries that have an official state religion and how their citizens are affected.
8:42 pm on Wednesday, April 17, 2013
The whole tone of this report is interesting - this is what could have gone wrong, but didn't. Not very confidence inspiring.
9:08 pm on Thursday, February 28, 2013
Should we laugh or cry over the failure of the City Plan Comission to assemble a quorom? I doubt BWW reps are laughing, and we'll be crying should this lead to the development being killed rather than just a delay. Is there someone responsible for insuring city reps attend meetings, a leader or manager? Embarassing and sad. I thought city employees were supposed to work on our behalf.
9:47 am on Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Lyle, I think Ryan is more pragmatic than you give him credit for. I believe when he put out the Medicare vouchers plan it was a negotiating poisition. Ryan calculated the other side would come back with a counter proposal. But in campaign season democrats decided it was better to critique Ryan than engage in Medicare reform discussions. Ryan modified his approach somewhat with a democratic co-sponsor to give seniors the options to stick with old Medicare or take the voucher option. I'm not defending Ryan's policy, but I give him credit for taking risk. The democrats at the national level made marginal gains, so, it appears their tactic to avoid offering a solutuion to the problem paid off. Of course that leaves my generation approaching Medicare age and wondering what will happen as the program nears bankruptcy. Ryan, I think, is also dealing pragmatically with the dynamics that exist within his party.
12:57 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013
Ryan and Obama are ideological opposites, throw in emotions of the recent campaign, plus recall Ryan being invited to attend a presidential budget presentation a couple years back, given a seat in the front row under false pretenses of a forthcoming compromise and then being used as a prop to slam Republicans. They respect each other, disagree on many things ideoloically, and have come to dislike each other. The president is known for a competitive streak and quickness to dismiss other's ideas. Ryan strikes me as guy who acts on his ideals but is willing to be pragmatic and negotiate. But when it comes to President Obama, the presz has gotten under Paul's skin and it shows. The president wants to take out Ryan since he is an effective champion the opposition's ideas.
9:47 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Actually Keith, I try not to be partisan. When I worked in the federal government I thought I'd do my job better if I didn't pick a political party. Your rude tone does you no honor and is counter-productive to convincing others of your argument. If past history is significant to you in the context of the Libyan episode, then in addition to Iraq, broaden the context to include Vietnam and Korea, among others. The Obama White House messed up the Libyan situatuion last year, we lost a good man originally from Wisconsin, and now no one will fess up because their political viabilities are more important than fixing the problems. Since I make you laugh, I bid you adieu since constructive discussion does not seem to be your thing.
8:04 am on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Keith, you illustrate our root problem, you seem to be greatly inclined to have a partisan fight, but much less motivated to get to the truth all the time so that problems can be solved. Iraq was wrong, Libya was wrong, and while we fiddle in partisanship, "Rome is burning". Odd you find that satisfying.
11:43 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
John, you are wearing partisan colored glasses. The CIA gives talking points, as does the State Dept, to the White House. Every day, every morning, 365 days a year. My point is that the White House was told security shortfalls existed at the Libyan mission. President Obama made one vague reference to terrorism the day after the attack, it could be construed as either a reference to terrorism generally or related to that attack. It was likely worded carefully so it could be interpretted either way. Then he went to the UN, apologized for a youtube video, and never mentioned terrorism. Rice never mentioned terrorism, and Clinton told family members of those killed in Libya the youtube video makers would be dealth with. The WH political staff likely kaboshed any mention of terrorism in Rice's remarks, and Clinton is now avoiding it to preserve her future polical options. As for what I wanted, I just wanted them to telll the truth. Security overseas is tricky and they messed this one up, they were not ready for the terrorists that attacked.
10:22 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
"Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, senator." First, Ambassador Rice explained that the event was a spontaneous protest, in other words, some guys were out for a walk and decided to protest. Second, security was a known concern in adavance of the attack. Third, to prevent future attacks requires both adequate facility defenses and recognition of the threats, i.e., terrorism, which an adminstration in campaign mode was loathe to pronounce.
6:55 am on Sunday, December 16, 2012
Brian, I agree with you and opine that tighter restrictions on certain classes of weapons are needed. People kill people. The availability of highly efficient killing tools enables people to kill massive numbers of people in a very brief period of time. Knives can be legally obtained, howitzers can't, the wise trick is to determine where in the spectrum in-between to restrict ownership.
I respectfully disagree with the Supreme Court's 2nd Amendment rulings. The historical context of that amendment reveals that British colonists in America were influenced by the attempt of one side to disarm the other during the English civil war, hence the language to keep a well-armed militia in our Constitution. I understand our current court has construed this to mean individuals have a right to bear arms, but when reading the majority's opinion it appears to me they began with a biased supposition and laid out an argument to support that position, ignoring contradictory facts. They were not the strict constructionists on the bench many citizens pine for.
I do understand our American tradition and belief of the right to defend oneself against a corrupt government, be that a crooked rural cop or a tyrannical central government. The question is whether guns are the most efficient weapon for this purpose? The TV character Archie Bunker stated hijacking could be stopped by arming all the passengers - it's a metaphor, in halting the hijacking you'd bring down the plane.
Advertise on Patch and reach potential customers in your backyard and beyond. Click here for more information.
Learn more »
If you want to help local causes, or your cause needs local help, your next click should be right here.
Learn more »
Fox Point-Bayside news, events, and deals sent to you daily and breaking news as it happens.
See more options
You’re now signed up!
Enter your tip here and it will be sent straight to
Editor Sarah Worthman, Jeff Rumage, and Jessica McBride,
Fox Point-Bayside Patch's (incredibly grateful)