The horrific attack was last Fall.

9/11, never forget
11/9, always regre t

Why is it that when states want to own slaves or ban gay marriage, it's "states rights", but when states want recreational marijuana, it's "breaking federal law"

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that our fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that our desire will ruin us.

Why is it that when states want to own slaves or ban gay marriage, it's "states rights", but when states want recreational marijuana, it's "breaking federal law"

Total change of topic.

Do you know what struggle Hitler was talking about when he titled his book Mein Kampf? In fact, the book was named after his struggle against the media, and the insults and lies he felt were written about him. The book frames Hitler's opinions with his conflicts with the press, and always returned to that issue; essentially, the book was a meandering diatribe against the media, and why Hitler felt they were a threat against the German people. Hitler did voice many criticisms of the press which were likely legitimate at the time, and are even true today - such as powerful interests wielding the press for political gain, and industry solidarity against their own criticism. However accurate his observations, though, it was always clear that Hitler never seriously considered the press a threat to the German people, but only to himself. He was simply too megalomaniacal to distinguish between his interests and those of Germany, even at that early point.

History might have turned out very differently, if only a few more Germans thought that a low-quality free press was better than not having one at all.

Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall.

Cleansing US math from Muslim influences would be totally fine. I can't see anything wrong with that.

Michael Anton is a straight reading of Dorothy Thompson's embittered snob pseudo-intellectual archetype.

Machiavelli's The Prince wasn't an instruction manual; it was a scathing criticism of despotism, and a poison pill for anybody who would model themselves after it. Damn shame he didn't pay more attention when he was reading it.