While I enjoyed reading your detailed explanation, I'd like to offer a simpler one: if two "gods" share three qualities: omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence, how can there be more than one of them? Logic tells me it's impossible.
I haven't heard a different concern mentioned, which I think is important. As the "boots on the ground" (a term I loathe) escalate, there will, at some point, be a capture of an American GI by ISIS/ISIL/Daesh. That will result in his/her horrific death, YouTubed for all to see, and we will do a full-fledged invasion in retaliation after. Americans will demand the grisly act be avenged. Then we'll be in the region forever on yet another misadventure.
Absolutely, Juan. It's one of the first things I thought about: where was the agony for those kids? Nowhere around here. (This is not meant to mitigate or lessen the tragedy of Newtown, but we must remember it in the context of our actions as a nation--OUR actions, we elect these guys).
Yes, Juan, thank you for mentioning Israel's 400 nuclear weapons. Very few American journalists, while making the case for attacking Iran for their "attempt to make 1" (which is doubtful), mention this fact.
If we assume Iran WAS making a warhead or two, how could they possibly use it against Israel? For them, it would be as idiotic an action as beginning a nuclear war would have been during the US-Soviet "balance of terror."
Your 10th point makes the others almost irrelevant. It is one I had never considered nor heard before: we can't control one but must spend billions to attempt to control the others. Brilliant, Juan.
How stupidly funny is that, since it pre-dates Hitler's rant by about 13-14 centuries? But I'm not surprised, considering the average intelligence and education of those who would say such things.
Maybe not directly on point, I think another accusation hurled at the Palestinians is that they had a "desert," which the Israelis turned into a "garden." That may have been on the mind of Mittens or his minions when they decided to make the "cultural difference" argument.
In response, the fact is that the Palestinians are a people steeped in the history of their climate and their culture accepts that reality. While Israelis may have, indeed, created a "garden," it is a temporary garden. They did this by pumping aquifers dry unsustainably and turning the Jordan River into a rivulet. At some point there will be a reckoning with the desert and guess which culture will be better adapted to that reality?
IS THERE or IS THERE NOT a law against American politicians receiving contributions from foreign nationals? I thought there was but I see nothing about it in any press.
What I'm interested in, particularly, is the fact that Mittens is hosting a $25,000 to $50,000-a-plate dinner with UK bankers. I wonder if they are all American citizens because, is it not true that foreign nationals cannot contribute to American political campaigns? (Or is there a "corporate" exemption [they're people too, after all, my friend] to this rule?)
AND, it goes without saying: BANKERS? Those at the heart of the LIBOR scandal? Are you SERIOUS?
Why would they bother? The MSM does that for them already, with the help of shills like Barry McCaffrey. It's like the double-secret N. Carolina amendment disallowing gay marriage: overkill. (Yes, I know, not really secret.)
I distinctly remember Rumsfeld and others, in 2003, excoriating France et al. for not "doing their part" in the Iraq war. At the time I considered that comment interesting, in light of the fact that we were/are ALL supposed to be DEMOCRACIES that respond to the WILLS of their PEOPLE. The French were doing no more than simply that, then. NATO is doing no more than that now. Our government didn't defer to public opinion then, or now, regarding ANY of our 3, 4, 5, 6 or more wars (depending on how you count them and how much the growing oligarchic national government allows us to know).
A superb commentary--laudable even for you. It is fantastically grotesque that a supporter of the IRA would turn around and smear Muslim-Americans and Islamic-Americans in this manner: "they didn't kill Americans??!?!!?" Is that what he REALLY said? Your "peaceful people power" phrase, also noted in a comment above, is especially on point, even prescient.
Another way in which local governments are whittling away at the right to peaceably assemble is by demanding that any such group acquire insurance against anything that "might happen" well in advance of the event. Those policies can be quite expensive.
Some friends wanted to picket Caterpillar in Peoria to protest their sales of earth moving equipment to Israel, used to destroy Palestinian dwellings to make way for Israeli "settlements." They held the march without, but the city severely limited its scope.
Good commentary on our rights against searches/to assemble vs. potential/actual similar rights in the Arab world.
I absolutely agree with you, professor Cole, regarding what Obama's action against MacChrystal SHOULD be.
But let's also remember the reaction against Truman, his popularity rating at the end of his presidency (only Nixon and "W" have been lower), and the relationship between the two.
I'm sorely afraid that Obama is FAR more interested in keeping his office than doing his job (sorry, Michael Douglas). Truman did what he did out of a far nobler perspective than seems no longer possible in the "modern" presidency. Obama will NOT fire MacChrystal because he's afraid of the reaction from Republicans and the effect it might have on his personal popularity (as if they don't/won't criticize him for anything/everything he does). Or, worse yet, he'll hem and haw and eventually "ask for his resignation," or some such other mealy-mouthed half-measure.
Many things disappoint me about our current president, but most of all is his continuing (seeming) lack of governing ability, especially when compared to his pre-election rhetoric. This case will be no exception.
© 2026 All Rights Reserved
While I enjoyed reading your detailed explanation, I'd like to offer a simpler one: if two "gods" share three qualities: omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence, how can there be more than one of them? Logic tells me it's impossible.
I haven't heard a different concern mentioned, which I think is important. As the "boots on the ground" (a term I loathe) escalate, there will, at some point, be a capture of an American GI by ISIS/ISIL/Daesh. That will result in his/her horrific death, YouTubed for all to see, and we will do a full-fledged invasion in retaliation after. Americans will demand the grisly act be avenged. Then we'll be in the region forever on yet another misadventure.
Well done, Juan. I think Mr. Gregory is among the "humorless."
Your title is too long. It should simply be "Why Scalia is Wrong."
It's time to use the word: apartheid.
Absolutely, Juan. It's one of the first things I thought about: where was the agony for those kids? Nowhere around here. (This is not meant to mitigate or lessen the tragedy of Newtown, but we must remember it in the context of our actions as a nation--OUR actions, we elect these guys).
Yes, Juan, thank you for mentioning Israel's 400 nuclear weapons. Very few American journalists, while making the case for attacking Iran for their "attempt to make 1" (which is doubtful), mention this fact.
If we assume Iran WAS making a warhead or two, how could they possibly use it against Israel? For them, it would be as idiotic an action as beginning a nuclear war would have been during the US-Soviet "balance of terror."
Your 10th point makes the others almost irrelevant. It is one I had never considered nor heard before: we can't control one but must spend billions to attempt to control the others. Brilliant, Juan.
"The Qur’an as the new Mein Kampf."
How stupidly funny is that, since it pre-dates Hitler's rant by about 13-14 centuries? But I'm not surprised, considering the average intelligence and education of those who would say such things.
Right on, Juan.
Randy Fritz
Maybe not directly on point, I think another accusation hurled at the Palestinians is that they had a "desert," which the Israelis turned into a "garden." That may have been on the mind of Mittens or his minions when they decided to make the "cultural difference" argument.
In response, the fact is that the Palestinians are a people steeped in the history of their climate and their culture accepts that reality. While Israelis may have, indeed, created a "garden," it is a temporary garden. They did this by pumping aquifers dry unsustainably and turning the Jordan River into a rivulet. At some point there will be a reckoning with the desert and guess which culture will be better adapted to that reality?
IS THERE or IS THERE NOT a law against American politicians receiving contributions from foreign nationals? I thought there was but I see nothing about it in any press.
Did Citizens United overturn that law also?
Juan:
What I'm interested in, particularly, is the fact that Mittens is hosting a $25,000 to $50,000-a-plate dinner with UK bankers. I wonder if they are all American citizens because, is it not true that foreign nationals cannot contribute to American political campaigns? (Or is there a "corporate" exemption [they're people too, after all, my friend] to this rule?)
AND, it goes without saying: BANKERS? Those at the heart of the LIBOR scandal? Are you SERIOUS?
Brilliant, but far, far above Ms. Bachmann's levels of intelligence and humor.
Why would they bother? The MSM does that for them already, with the help of shills like Barry McCaffrey. It's like the double-secret N. Carolina amendment disallowing gay marriage: overkill. (Yes, I know, not really secret.)
wrf1984
And, Juan, is it not also true that part of the heritage of many southern Europeans, especially those from the Iberian Peninsula, is Arab?
All of which simply goes to your points, as well as the many excellent comments above, that these "color lines" are nativistic and, ultimately, silly.
Thanks for the excellent perspective -
Brilliant, of course, Juan.
And, because of that, as well as its logic, it will never happen.
Careful, prof. Cole--you are in dangerous territory here--actually writing the TRUTH.
I distinctly remember Rumsfeld and others, in 2003, excoriating France et al. for not "doing their part" in the Iraq war. At the time I considered that comment interesting, in light of the fact that we were/are ALL supposed to be DEMOCRACIES that respond to the WILLS of their PEOPLE. The French were doing no more than simply that, then. NATO is doing no more than that now. Our government didn't defer to public opinion then, or now, regarding ANY of our 3, 4, 5, 6 or more wars (depending on how you count them and how much the growing oligarchic national government allows us to know).
A superb commentary--laudable even for you. It is fantastically grotesque that a supporter of the IRA would turn around and smear Muslim-Americans and Islamic-Americans in this manner: "they didn't kill Americans??!?!!?" Is that what he REALLY said? Your "peaceful people power" phrase, also noted in a comment above, is especially on point, even prescient.
Another way in which local governments are whittling away at the right to peaceably assemble is by demanding that any such group acquire insurance against anything that "might happen" well in advance of the event. Those policies can be quite expensive.
Some friends wanted to picket Caterpillar in Peoria to protest their sales of earth moving equipment to Israel, used to destroy Palestinian dwellings to make way for Israeli "settlements." They held the march without, but the city severely limited its scope.
Good commentary on our rights against searches/to assemble vs. potential/actual similar rights in the Arab world.
I absolutely agree with you, professor Cole, regarding what Obama's action against MacChrystal SHOULD be.
But let's also remember the reaction against Truman, his popularity rating at the end of his presidency (only Nixon and "W" have been lower), and the relationship between the two.
I'm sorely afraid that Obama is FAR more interested in keeping his office than doing his job (sorry, Michael Douglas). Truman did what he did out of a far nobler perspective than seems no longer possible in the "modern" presidency. Obama will NOT fire MacChrystal because he's afraid of the reaction from Republicans and the effect it might have on his personal popularity (as if they don't/won't criticize him for anything/everything he does). Or, worse yet, he'll hem and haw and eventually "ask for his resignation," or some such other mealy-mouthed half-measure.
Many things disappoint me about our current president, but most of all is his continuing (seeming) lack of governing ability, especially when compared to his pre-election rhetoric. This case will be no exception.