Skip to content

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

  • To the Editor:

    In Tuesday night’s G.O.P. presidential debate, no candidate mentioned climate change as a threat to national security, even though it portends human suffering and conflict on a scale unprecedented in human history. Climate change is widely blamed for a severe five-year drought in Syria that the Defense Department believes contributed to “massive agriculture failures and population displacements,” and that helped precipitate the civil war there.

    American military leaders describe the effects of climate change as “threat multipliers” that will aggravate poverty and political instability around the world, creating conditions that foment terrorist activity and other forms of violence. The continued Republican denial of this threat is itself a threat to national security.

    STEPHEN DYCUS

    New York

    The writer teaches national security law at Vermont Law School.

    Note from KBJ: This man is delusional. Nobody mentioned climate change as a threat to national security because climate change is not a threat to national security.

    From Today’s New York Times

    –––––––

    Dec 17
  • I administered the final examination in my Philosophy of Religion course this morning. The final multiple-choice question (of 25) asked the students whether I (Keith) am a theist, an atheist, or an agnostic. Everyone got credit for it. Guess how it came out?

    • Theist (defined as someone who believes that God exists): 12.
    • Atheist (defined as someone who believes that God does not exist): 2.
    • Agnostic (defined as someone who neither believes that God exists nor believes that God does not exist): 13.

    I'm proud of this. If the students didn't know at the end of the semester what my own beliefs are, then I must have been fair in my presentation of the arguments and criticisms.

    Pedagogy

    –––––––

    Dec 17
  • Michno, The Mystery of E Troop (1994)

    What I’m Reading

    –––––––

    Dec 17
  • No Brakes (1984).

    John Waite, “Missing You” (1984)

    –––––––

    Dec 16
  • Here.

    Ten Years Ago Today in This Blog

    –––––––

    Dec 16
  • Here.

    Dilbert

    –––––––

    Dec 16
  • Hilarious.

    Academentia

    –––––––

    Dec 16
  • To the editor:

    [Ken] White speaks of “productive conversation” in the debate over gun control. What some fail to understand is that many of us who support gun rights view gun control with the same disdain as female circumcision. Thus, we will not even discuss compromising our rights.

    This includes (especially) national gun registration, disguised as background checks. Such a requirement can facilitate wholesale gun confiscation at the whim of any renegade official.

    The meaning of the 2nd Amendment is crystal clear. Patrick Henry said it best: “Unless a miracle in human affairs interposed, no nation ever retained its liberty after the loss of the sword and the purse.”

    Lloyd Forrester, Simi Valley

    From Today’s Los Angeles Times

    –––––––

    Dec 16
  • Here.

    Ten Years Ago Today in This Blog

    –––––––

    Dec 15
  • Here.

    Dilbert

    –––––––

    Dec 15
Previous Page Next Page

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

    Have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.

  • Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.
    View site in Reader
    Manage subscriptionsSign upLog in
    Report this content
    Collapse this bar