I do not believe you did this on purpose, but you switched contexts during your argument. First, you stated that race does not exist at the "biological" level; and then you went on to say, presumably as an explanation, that there is "no genetic trait" behind race. Those two statements are not the same thing. I recall that when the human genome project was completed, scientists stated that one of the things they determined is that genes, by themselves, cannot account for all of the variability among human beings; and, thus, the field of epigenetics took off.

What goes on at what you call the "genetic" level is not the last word on biology. If at the genetic level race is not distinct, that does not mean there is no biological cause behind race.

The traitors are those in power who have operated using unlawful actions. Nothing is more dangerous than a government operating outside of law. Get your priorities straight.

It's gateway personalities that are the problem.

They also collaborated, along with Motorola, on the PowerPC. Admittedly, that's a dubious thing to note.

Simply harping on about "misogyny" and "racism" betrays the intellectual bankruptcy of your critique.

Generally speaking, the highest earners provide the greatest benefit to the country.

This has been the favored business model of big players in this country since before the railroads. From what I can gather, it began with the canals. Monied interests get in bed with politicians and use the law to squeeze out everyone else. I think you're absolutely right. And none of us should be surprised when Amazon, whose web services host a number of government departments, and whose CEO owns one of the two major newspapers in the country, is granted an "exception."

This is how the crooked game is played.

The whole idea of (whatever they're calling it now) global warming is inextricably bound up with centralized economic planning or, at the very least, extensive economic regulation; and in many cases it goes beyond that with the advocating of international boards that threaten national sovereignty. Furthermore, many of these proposed treaties are seen by their opponents—and not without good cause—as a way of stifling rich, developed countries while favoring un-developed or developing countries. They're seen as a political punishing of the "Great Satan." This is what people can't get past.

Imagine if Pinky and the Brain had possessed such capabilities! They could not have been stopped.

What's stopping them is socialism.

So, what! The Cubans can just put the resources of their mighty socialist republic to work and manufacture all the food and medicine the people need. Isn't that the way it works?

Who knew that Bible-thumping Republicans were farming Sweden!

You do know that the Common Core has only begun with English and math standards, and that social studies and science standards are next, right?

I think national standards are the entire problem. We shouldn't have national standards. For one, we're a nation of some 300-plus million people distributed across 50 states, with varying geography, cultures, industries, and so forth. Why would anyone think one size should fit all? It's funny how there is so much talk about "diversity" all the time and how great it is, but heaven forbid there should be diversity in education in this country. The federal government has no business in education. But apart from all that, centralization in a country like this poses another problem. It gives a single pressure point for every kind of political or ideological fad or bent. Anyone with an axe to grind, a chip on his or her shoulder, or just a run-of-the-mill "I know better than thou" complex has but a single pressure point to grab hold of to bend the country to his or her will. Today you may like who is behind this push for a de facto national curriculum. But tomorrow you may not be. What happens then?

I'm for competition, diversity, innovation, and freedom. The Common Core is antithetical to all that.

I hope I'm remembering this correctly, but haven't some people challenged the National Security Letters, only to have the FBI rescind them before the case comes to court, presumably because they fear having a court rule them unconstitutional?