Juan,

If they did it would be troubling. They did have a significant presence in Hollywood. Still do. I would argue that this presence has been very positive. That would take another column just to skim the surface of my argument.

I could make the same argument over the control of Fox by confederates of Roger Ailes considering the reliance of so many baby boomers on its "fair and balanced" news." But rather than call it a "stranglehold" I would say the same thing I said about the possibility that Jews had a stranglehold on "pornagraphic" Hollywood in the early part of the 20th century. It would be troubling.

That's the price we pay for the 1st Amendment.

Thank you, Dr. Kohls.

Many of us have, for some time, been digging into the science and data regarding vaccinations and vaccination injuries. I continue to be dumbfounded at how much actual science exists refuting the claims of the vaccine industry, and yet so many people repeat the industry talking points as though they're the final and only word on the subject. And I do wish people would stop using the phrase "the science is settled". Science is a process, not a set of religious-like beliefs. Science is always forming new conclusions as more information becomes available. I would say that what's clear is that actual science, in abundance, paints a dim picture regarding the role of vaccines on human health.

And, I appreciate the title of this article. Many people lumped into the category of “anti-vaccine” aren’t actually anti-vaccine. They’re pro vaccine choice, and pro informed consent, and pro let’s make these things safer because all the science proves they’re not. What “anti-vaccine” people are saying is that the damage being created by the toxic vaccines are, in many cases, far greater than what might be experienced by the diseases they claim to prevent. Sometimes by magnitudes into the hundreds. THIS is the information trying to be stopped.

Censorship is unacceptable. Mandated vaccinations are a whole other level of evil.

Jen, neither AOC and Al Gore practice what they preach, and Pocahontas is, unfortunately, a liar. Jen, do wealthy hipsters like you that live off of their trust funds hate the 1% of tax payers because they work for a living? What do you think about taxing wealth? Does that idea scare you?

Wow! You’re only forgetting that FACT that the military system works because of a strict set of regulations that requires EVERYONE to work and to CONTRIBUTE. I spent 25 years in the Army and I do recieve entitlements - THAT I EARNED. Additionally, the free healthcare, free housing, free food, etc. .... Its not really free. The entry level pay for a soldier is less than 20K a year. That’s why all those entitlements are provided - because you’re working for them. Additionally, if you don’t work and you don’t contribute, you are forced to leave the military. That’s why it works, dummy! There’s no bums begging for handouts on military posts. Socialism on the other hand, gives entitlements to people who are lazy and want something for nothing - which is why it NEVER works. Pretty simple concept.

I'm starting to like our rep.

"We can’t be only upset with Trump. … His policies are bad, but many of the people who came before him also had really bad policies. They just were more polished than he was," said Omar. "And that’s not what we should be looking for anymore. We don’t want anybody to get away with murder because they are polished. We want to recognize the actual policies that are behind the pretty face and the smile."

As she saw it, the party ostensibly committed to progressive values had become complicit in perpetuating the status quo. Omar says the “hope and change” offered by Barack Obama was a mirage. Recalling the “caging of kids” at the U.S.-Mexico border and the “droning of countries around the world” on Obama’s watch, she argues that the Democratic president operated within the same fundamentally broken framework as his Republican successor. -Politico

Dr. Kohls has destroyed yet another one of my irony meters. He deceptively describes my go-to tactic as to attack with ad hominem attacks, when his first move against me was to misattribute unflattering quotes to me. When informed of this error (and I provided irrefutable evidence that these quotes were misattributed), what does Dr. Kohls do? Does he correct his post. No! he doubles down and launches—you guessed it!—ad hominem attacks against me:

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2019/03/08/dr-gary-kohls-strikes-back-against-orac-in-the-duluth-reader/

Here's the evidence that Dr. Kohls misattributed quotes to me:

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2019/02/18/gary-kohls-md-lies-about-orac/

Unfortunately, The Duluth Reader, thanks to Dr. Kohls, is a wretched hive of scum and antivaccine misinformation:

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2019/02/21/duluth-reader-gary-g-kohls/

The Duluth Reader needs to get its act together.

Also, I just noticed that, in another irony meter-frying bit of hilarity in next week's column Dr. Kohls likens critics of antivaxers to Nazis and efforts to slow the spread of antivaccine misinformation to Nazi book burnings. Hypocrisy, much?

(Smile and Nod)

Ever heard of John Hagee? He's into all things red (preaching, predicts &politics). Most church pulpits have (sadly) lost their hearts and sermon skipped the words in red about the poor. However, bubbles are blue (too) and science begins with predicts (with further analysis and follow up).

Prediction: churches will adapt their messages to increase attendance/authority. A revelation? Nope, nothing new. Ample examples exists, like marriage regardless of infidelity or abuse altho disputed & discussed in the NT or debt forgiveness after 7 years in the OT (this was not ammended in the new, so how about we remind them of this oversight...but it's still a NO on the goat thing.) (Smile)

A cracked spine and open heart might even find support (judgement was never granted) for LGBT in the NT. Frankly, I frequently question the tithing to any Catholic church given the frequent omissions (and then admittances)of wrong doing to our babies. How does one identify with that?At this point, it looks like a flock issue.

Lastly, climate change has been painted as a "problem for the poor" without any REAL discussion as to who that is (or will be.) Movement on this issue is likely a paint/brush issue. Guess that is why best seller cookbooks have pictures of food not kitchens or ovens. (Smile)

It's been a pleasure reading your "words of matter." Take Care.

Dr. Kohls has destroyed yet another one of my irony meters. He deceptively describes my go-to tactic as to attack with ad hominem attacks, when his first move against me was to misattribute unflattering quotes to me. When informed of this error (and I provided irrefutable evidence that these quotes were misattributed), what does Dr. Kohls do? Does he correct his post. No! he doubles down and launches—you guessed it!—ad hominem attacks against me:

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2019/03/08/dr-gary-kohls-strikes-back-against-orac-in-the-duluth-reader/

Here's the evidence that Dr. Kohls misattributed quotes to me:

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2019/02/18/gary-kohls-md-lies-about-orac/

Unfortunately, The Duluth Reader, thanks to Dr. Kohls, is a wretched hive of scum and antivaccine misinformation:

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2019/02/21/duluth-reader-gary-g-kohls/

The Duluth Reader needs to get its act together.

"Shifty Schiff" is how this terrible human is referred to in polite conservative company. He's a tool who will always defend his paid interests instead of his constituents.

This is typical liberal logic with two nice examples. 1. We think we have a linear or exponential increase in temperature due to increased carbon dioxide, which is not true. 2. We think we have a linear or exponential increase in population, which is not true. Now you can read Forrest's alarmist article with the volume turned down.

HOLY ****! An ethnic slur! You know Juan, I read a few of your posts now and then and just digest them and analyze them for what they are. You make some points on occasion but mostly come off as a poster who is simply looking to engage others in ideological conflict. But now this! Whether or not you support Senator Warren is your call, but the ethnic slur is unecessary and uncalled for. Pretty sad. Pretty weak. Thought you may have been better then this....

Given James Madison's role in the creation of the Constitution AND the Bill of Rights, I accept his authority on the meaning of "militia" in the 2nd Amendment. Not to be accused of directing your thinking, I invited you to read whatever else you like. In retrospect, however, I would steer you away from whatever reading led you to believe that most delegates (I presume you mean to the 1787 convention) "were for NO Federal government". I haven't read everything about all of them, but I'm not aware of a single one of that opinion. Many certainly favored a severely limited central government; hence the Federalist/anti-Federalist divide, with many shades of opinion on both sides. The anti-Federalists, by the way, were those most adamantly opposed to a standing army, preferring reliance on militia instead. Their understanding of the nature of the militia coincided with that of Madison and other Federalists. "Classical Liberal" is a label which is entirely irrelevant to the current topic (read the piece you offer in your follow-on comment). Speaking of labels, if I'm a moron, where does that leave you?
P.S. Who is Harry?

Interesting, but irrelevant.

Love your Humor Marc, that's funny! Interesting of you to point out that she's not enough Native American to be slurred by calling her that, since she's white, and if I'm not mistaken, using the rules of intersectionality, she can't be the target of a racial slur. Sexist remark, maybe, but not racist.

James Madison was a federalist, which mean that he wanted a relatively strong central government. His version of what that means is different than what a Liberal would want. Classical Liberal means that you want freedom from government, for example freedom from the Federal Government, not the new liberal version of freedom which doesn't mean freedom at all.

Yes, Madison was a federalist; that much is clear. I don't understand why you want to apply labels from other times to him. What is your point?

Oh that's right, as a progressive you wouldn't immediately accept and understand that strong central governments take power and rights away from individuals. I'm willing to bet without verifying it first, that Madison was also against the rest of the bill of rights.

The Anti-Federalists, whose desire to better protect the power of the states indirectly led to the Bill of Rights, would no doubt be mystified at this outcome. But in an age in which our First and Second Amendment rights in particular are in the crosshairs of the states no less than the federal government, Americans can be grateful for the protections the Bill of Rights affords. Today, perhaps more than ever, we need our Bill of Rights, and a citizenry that understands the sacred liberties inscribed on this piece of worn parchment. (Madison introduced the Bill of Rights to appease the Anti-Federalists who wanted more States Rights)

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed84.asp Here's Hamilton in his own words arguing against the Bill of Rights.