1. Please be polite. 2. Do disagree, but don't swear, blaspheme, or abuse. 3. I write as if my late parents are reading. Please do the same. 4. You always have control over how you conduct yourself. 5. A more civil society starts with you.

Based on his own public statements, if James Talarico were to face the judgment seat today, he would almost certainly be going to hell, yes. Because he has made it clear that he does not follow the Jesus Christ of the Bible. He does not follow the One who says that no man comes to the Father but through him, and he is the narrow gate. Talarico has argued for a wide gate that requires no belief in Christ to enter the Father‘s presence. He has argued for a false profession of faith that requires no obedience and no commitment to following Jesus as his disciple. This is not Christianity. So it may seem offputting to you who do not understand the gospel to say that he is going to hell. But the good news is that he can repent now and I pray he does. And then and only then can James Talarico have assurance that he will be in the Father’s presence when he dies.

You don't get to complain about red-baiting or McCarthyism when the people you are defending are actual reds.

Can confirm- and I don't mean me: for decades I saw many others, truly brilliant minds, terrific scientists, incredible teachers, real treasures for the nation to have teaching the next generation in higher education- all ran out out of the industry. And, every one has horror stories of it being done by the very least competent people with no scruples of ethics

The ranks of academia are filled with people who: - Describe themselves as socialists - Speak admiringly of Marxism & agree with Marx on about 95% of everything he wrote - Constantly use Marxist ideas in their research - Constantly teach Marxist ideas in their classrooms - Aggressively defend the stature of Marx as an intellectual figure to the point that they take personal offense over even minor slights to his reputation ...and yet adamantly insist that they are not, personally, Marxists. One implication is that survey measures of Marxists in academia almost certainly *understate* the ubiquity of Marxist ideology on campus.

Thomas Sowell, deep if you think about it

The difference in production costs between a dozen cage-free eggs and a dozen normal eggs is 19 cents. But the cage-free eggs can cost nearly $2 more. Big supermarkets use cage-free as a price discrimination tool - targeting them to richer customers who are willing to pay more. Poorer customers, even if they care a lot about animal welfare, end up buying the normal eggs. But when states pass laws banning caged eggs, the markup disappears.

There is precisely one contemporaneous historian who lived in and wrote about 1st century Judaea and he literally did write about Jesus

So it seems like the ordinary folks of all these countries—Europe, Japan, South Africa—like each other very much. Lies from our elites keep us from enjoying our own and each other’s culture as much as we should. When I go to Germany, I want German culture. When I go to Ireland, I want Irish culture, when I go to Japan, I want Japanese culture. I don’t want everywhere to be the same with enforced multiculturalism that feels like no particular place.

Quite an opening to NYT article on Judge Eleanor Ross, titled Sex, Lies and Secrets: A Federal Judge’s Trysts Go Public. Add to this the (criminal) lies that she told the investigating judges.

This is my favorite argument. In Hiroshima, roughly 140k people died due to the nuclear bomb out of 350k. That’s 40% of the city. In Nagasaki, 80k people died out of 263k. That’s 30% of the city. In Gaza, 73k people have died (according to GHM) out of 2.3 million. That’s about 3% of the population. A substantial percentage of that are terrorists. So Israel has dropped an amount of bombs on Gaza that exceeds the power of the nuclear bombs we dropped on Japan and yet the death toll is far lower both proportionally and on a raw numbers basis. How is that possible if Israel is committing genocide? Maybe it’s because they’re not.

Bill Clinton claimed to have read 500 books while at Oxford on Rhodes Scholarship. In 1992 a British journalist found his library records. He never checked out a single book.

The year is 1949. The Nobel Prize in Medicine has just gone to the man who invented the lobotomy. Your doctor suggests one for your sister, who has not been herself since the baby came. It is the most celebrated advance in psychiatry of the age, and he is simply current. By the time the prize curdles into an embarrassment, close to twenty thousand Americans have had the operation, and proportionally more here in Britain. The year is 1956. Lay the baby down on his front, the doctor says. So does the most trusted childcare book ever written, the one on every new mother's shelf. On his back he might choke, the reasoning goes. Millions obey. The advice holds for nearly thirty years, long after the evidence has quietly turned, and a generation of cot deaths is counted before anyone thinks to roll the babies over. The year is 1966. A bestselling book informs your wife that menopause is a disease, that she is, in the author's word, a castrate, and that a small daily pill will keep her youthful and tolerable to live with. Her doctor agrees. The drug becomes one of the most prescribed in the country. Nobody mentions that the author sat on the payroll of the company that made it. That detail surfaces decades later, in the same year the landmark trial is halted early for raising rates of breast cancer, stroke and clots. The year is 1979. Your ulcer is caused by stress and sharp food, the doctor explains. Calm down, drink milk, take the antacid that happens to be the best-selling medicine on earth. Two Australians are about to prove that most ulcers are caused by a bacterium and cured by a fortnight of antibiotics. The profession laughs. One of them eventually drinks a beaker of the stuff to settle the matter. The establishment takes the better part of twenty years to stop laughing. The Nobel lands in 2005. The year is 1985. Butter is dangerous, the doctor says. Switch to margarine, it is modern, it is heart-healthy, the experts are united. The spread he nudges you toward is loaded with trans fats, which the next decade will identify as the genuinely dangerous one, and which will eventually be banned outright. The butter goes quietly back in the fridge. No correction is ever printed at the volume of the original warning. The year is 1992. There is a pyramid on the surgery wall, and the very same one in your grandchild's classroom. Bread, cereal, rice and pasta form the broad virtuous base, up to eleven servings a day. Fat is exiled to the tiny tip. The chart was reportedly held back a year while the relevant industries had their say. It is wrong at the bottom and wrong at the top. Now it is today. Your doctor has new guidelines, new studies, a fresh consensus, delivered with precisely the steady confidence of every guideline above. He believes it, and he has good reason to. So did every doctor in this thread. None of them were villains. Each was sincere, most were kind, and all were certain, reading from a map that somebody else had drawn and handed them. That is the part worth sitting with. So when the man in the white coat tells you what to eat, what to fear, and what to swallow every morning for the rest of your life, you are allowed to ask. Who paid for the study. What the evidence says beneath the headline. What he was just as certain about thirty years ago, and where that advice sits now. Then make up your own mind. Call it scepticism, or call it whatever your grandmother called it when she ignored the advert, kept the butter where it was, and lived to ninety-one. It has outlasted every consensus on this list. It will outlast this one too.

Mohsen Mahdawi is 34 years old. He first enrolled at Birzeit University in the West Bank in 2008 and studied there for six years. In 2018 he enrolled as an undergraduate at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. He stayed there until 2021, and never earned a credential despite enrolling as a seventh year senior and being a full time student there for four years. Despite this extremely suspicious academic record, he was admitted as a transfer to Columbia University — a school which rejects over 97% of applicants — where he attended as an undergraduate for another four years. Columbia’s rules explicitly state that students must be progressing toward an on-time graduation, but they accepted Mahdawi as an eleventh year undergraduate and allowed him to remain a student in good standing even though he was evidently not maintaining a full course load. His student status was a pretext; he was acting as a full-time anti-American, anti-Jewish and pro-terrorism activist. Since he claims to be a Palestinian refugee, it is unclear who was paying his tuition or providing for his rent and expenses in New York City while he was engaged in subverting American institutions. He finally earned a bachelor’s degree in May 2025 from one of the top five American universities after 17 years as an undergraduate and was accepted to a master’s program at Columbia even though the State Department was already trying to deport him on national security grounds. Democrats at every level fought hard to keep him in the country.

Got it, yeah nothing fishy here. Raman just knows how to get those after Election Day mail ins to force the one guy the machine doesn’t want in a runoff completely out of the race. Weird coincidence I guess.

Every university says it supports academic freedom and due process. None are willing to restore the scholars they drove out when doing so was popular. This is one of the central tests universities continue to avoid. If institutions want the public to believe they have changed, it is not enough to issue statements about academic freedom. Academics who were punished, sidelined, or pushed out for expressing lawful views must be restored and made whole. Until that happens, claims of reform are difficult to take seriously. I have seen little evidence that universities are willing to revisit these cases or acknowledge the mistakes that were made.

No, Maliq. This is silly People are aware that a number of radical Muslims are threatening to take Britain over, and kill infidels Many Muslims do not have this intention, but they seem loathe to speak, up for some reason It's hard for someone like me to figure out how strong the moderates are, and whether the radicals can be controlled In the meantime it's safer for me to take the threats seriously And the threats are not coming from the Buddhists

The great thing about immigration is that you *escape* your past and are accepted into the new country. And people can forget about the old stuff. (Not too important, but in my case, jerking back someone's ribs to make an "angel". I'm not proud of that Viking custome.)

The great thing about immigration is that you *escape* your past and are accepted into the new country. And people can forget about the old stuff.

So the geniuses at Harvard named their new “Jewish” liturgy journal after a Canaanite idol the Torah commands us to destroy, claiming they want to go back to the pre-Torah ancient origins of Israel. Reminds me of a vort I heard from R’ Sholom Ber Gordon a"h (via his son R’ Josh a"h): The secularists always claim they’re up-to-date and religious Jews are old-fashioned. But the Haggadah says: מתחילה עובדי עבודה זרה היו אבותינו — “In the beginning, our fathers were idol worshippers,” ועכשיו קרבנו המקום לעבודתו — “and now the Holy One has brought us close to His service.” Idol worship is old. Torah is current. Get up to date,