Latest reader comments

  • Reply to: Thursday News: Strike Three   4 hours 3 min ago

    This kind of stuff really ticks me off. Back when I was in the Army, we went on a mission to a foreign country. Nothing "Hollywood" about it, it was just a joint training exercise. But it was in a "sensitive" part of the world, and deeply classified. I couldn't even tell my wife where I was going, and we were "isolated" in a compound for three weeks as we prepared for the trip.

    But somebody talked, and as our aircraft lifted off for a two-day flight, the story broke below the fold on the front page of the New York Times. As a result, we had Russians and PLO in our back pockets the whole time we were there. To say things were "uncomfortable" is a huge understatement.

    Donald Trump is a walking, talking, Tweeting security risk. The intelligence community (not to mention Defense) should be deeply concerned, and that means we should be, too.

  • Reply to: Wednesday News: It's up to the judges now   19 hours 28 min ago

    Benny Gantz. I mean, he's not really a new guy, he commanded the IDF for about 5 years before moving into the Knesset. But he says he wants peace with the Palestinians, and he's ready to make concessions on some land. If it's in the West Bank, that would be fantastic.

    He's still right of center, but the days of a Liberal being able to form a majority coalition are (probably) long past.

  • Reply to: Wednesday News: It's up to the judges now   23 hours 24 min ago

    underscores the fractured nature of politics today. We seem to be divided evenly between warmongering fascists and social democrats ... with very little wiggle room in the middle. Maybe it's always been that way? I dunno. All I can say is I won't mind it when my time on this earth is over ... though I have great sadness for future generations, including my own grandchildren.

  • Reply to: Strange times: Should the NC Supreme Court get involved in veto-gate?   1 day 1 hour ago

    to see if this travesty makes it past the Senate before initiating litigation. That said, I've heard from several people who are exploring litigation options at this moment.

    Wouldn't it be interesting if a Court would actually say that intentionally deceiving the public is against the law?

  • Reply to: There's always that one guy who has to spoil it for everybody...   2 days 1 hour ago

    And we still don't have much appreciation for the sanctity of democracy.