Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

See here.

The Unforgettable Fire (1984). I played electric guitar for several years in my youth and have been playing acoustic guitar for the past two. This song blows my mind. I don't even know how the Edge (the guitar player) gets his guitar to make these sounds. Sit back and enjoy.

I'm surprised National Review allowed Conrad Black to publish this column on its website. National Review will go out of business soon, and deservedly so. Its editors have proved that they are elitists, not conservatives; or rather, that they are elitists first and conservatives second. The American people now know that they were only pretending to care about ordinary, everyday, hard-working, God-fearing people. What they care about is living the high life. Oh, and warmongering.

To the Editor:

What a spectacle. A big, alpha male bully stalking the debate stage, scowling, posturing, growling and snuffling, hovering over his opponent, threatening her with jail if he’s elected, constantly interrupting her and whining that “it’s 3 on 1” and that she’s getting more time than he. What a great potential president!

FLOYD A. SHORT

Seattle

Note from KBJ: After eight years of effeminacy in the person of Barack Obama, it's time we had a man in the White House. It sounds like Floyd Short is intimidated by masculinity and projecting that timidity onto Hillary Clinton. Turn in your Man Card, Floyd.

Note 2 from KBJ: As for Trump "threatening [Clinton] with jail," he's signaling to the American people that nobody, even the Clintons, will be above the law when he is president. How refreshing is that after eight years in which the president of the United States used the law (and his office) to punish his enemies and reward his friends?

Flying in a Blue Dream (1989).

Here.

Scott Adams analyzes yesterday's presidential debate.

Here.

There seems to be a misunderstanding about what is happening with regard to Donald Trump's lewd comments of many years ago. Rush Limbaugh and others have tried to turn things around on the leftists who are attacking Trump. Limbaugh implies that the leftists are hypocrites, since (he says) they are the primary coarseners of discourse in this country. How can leftists complain about Trump's coarseness, rudeness, or vulgarity when they're the ones who have encouraged it?

This misses the point entirely. Leftists are arguing ad hominem. That is to say, they're trying to persuade a particular audience to abandon Trump. That audience consists of people, male and female alike, who abstain from coarse language, subscribe to a code or ideal of gentlemanly behavior, or have traditional views of sexual morality. Leftists are trying to peel these people away from Trump, which will, they (rightly) believe, increase the chances of Hillary Clinton being elected four weeks from tomorrow.

In order for me to persuade you to believe or accept a particular proposition, I must employ premises that you accept, not premises that I accept. (I may or may not accept them.) John Locke (1632-1704) called this argumentative technique argumentum ad hominem, which is Latin for "argument to the person" (as opposed to an argument to the world). There is nothing disreputable about it. Indeed, I would argue that it's the only type of argument that has a chance of succeeding, if "succeeding" means persuading or making a difference to someone's beliefs. For think about it. If I employ one or more premises that you reject (or merely fail to accept), then I have failed of my purpose. You will simply reject (or refuse to accept) the premise and walk away unpersuaded. Try it some time. Cite a passage of the Bible as a premise in an argument designed to persuade a nonChristian of some proposition.

Leftists know what they're doing. What's sad is that so many conservatives (e.g., William Kristol, Jonah Goldberg, and John Podhoretz) are joining them. They're moral puritans first and conservatives second.

Here is the latest ranking. In my opinion, Alabama is overranked and Michigan underranked.