Are you referring to Walsh here? Because I think he went on for some length on how this applies to him…
February 23, 2015 at 5:44pm
1) In that case caffeine is mind altering because it does, in fact, help many with ADHD symptoms.
2) If you want to be a doctor, GPA matters. If you want to go to a prestigious college, GPA matters. If you’re going to need scholarships to afford college, GPA matters. Are there life choices where a high GPA doesn’t matter? I’m sure. But this is about giving as many options as you can to your children.
3) I believe I stated “nonstimulant” medicine. If you don’t know enough about this subject to know that ritalin is most definitely a stimulant then I suggest you learn more before commenting.
February 19, 2015 at 11:35am
Thank God for people like Mike Rowe.
 February 18, 2015 at 10:08am
I love reading your posts Mr. Walsh. They always make me think.
Assume you had a child having difficulty with school, who couldn’t focus and was on track to graduate with a 1.5-2.0 GPA. And assume that giving him one non-stimulant pill (there are non-stimulant options that help these issues and work very well for some children) would change that to a 3.5-4.0 GPA and give him far more options when it comes time to decide how he wants to spend the rest of his life. Would you, as a parent, really choose to not give them that pill?
First, giving children mind altering drugs for any but the most pressing medical reasons (a low GPA is not a medical reason) should be a considered bad idea in the mind of any sane person and ADHD drugs have to be mind altering or they wouldn’t help the professed symptoms.
Second, your school GPA rarely affects your adult life (any graduate or even a GED holder can attend college if he or she really wants to).
Third, having seen firsthand what these drugs do to children and how my nephew came to life when I took him off the meds (I believe it was Ritalin but that was 15 years ago) I consider this to be a form of child abuse.
some parents choose not to give their kids vaccines that prevents them from getting and spreading deadly diseases. so yeah, they would choose not to give their kids a pill that would help them in this way.
You want to help that 1.5-2.0 GPA student? Rather than medicating them with 'a pill' that you don't know the longterm effects of, try engaging them in something that interests them. Try pulling them off the path that every other sheep is on and letting them blaze their own trail. THIS is how you get the most out of this personality type; not by suppressing it with medicine! That's insane!
I'd choose a kid acting like himself over some roboticized child taking medication getting perfect grades. You can't just drug a kid up because you want better grades! You can't gauge a kid if he has a disorder because his grades aren't high enough! Ain't it normal that kids generally don't like sitting in a classroom for 6 hours a day and naturally don't pay attention to things they don't like? There's better ways to get a child to make better grades in school than hopping him up on medication that might damage him later.
He always provides hard "socially conservative" stances on subjects that has not applied or won't apply to him. He's entitled to an opinion and a right to say it but his validity and relevance drops consiberable in my assessment.
 February 17, 2015 at 5:51pm
This guy must only watch MSNBC.
 February 17, 2015 at 5:25pm
Absolute unchanging standards are exactly what you’d expect from an eternal unchanging God.
 February 13, 2015 at 1:58pm
If he does veto it, the reason he’ll give will have something to do with some attachment to the bill. Thus, the environmentalists are happy because he vetoed it and he muddies the water for everyone else so they aren’t quite as angry. “He’s not really against the pipeline, he just wants a clean bill!”
Rule of Politics #1: obscure, confuse, make unclear, blur, muddle, overcomplicate, muddy, cloud, befog, obfuscate, lie
February 12, 2015 at 2:19pm
“Hi Matt, I read you sometimes but I generally find you to be an assh*le. Just being honest.” – JM
I would have stopped reading right there. But I’m glad Matt kept going because I enjoyed his reply.
 February 11, 2015 at 11:27am
He criticizes christians for what happened 700 years ago and turns a blind eye to what radical muslims are doing today.
It’s really simple. The bible tells you to love your enemies. The quran tells you to kill them. What more needs to be said?
February 10, 2015 at 11:42am
First, if you remember ROUS’s were actually real in the princess bride and almost killed Westley so I think the analogy you’re trying for breaks down.
Second, I think it’s possible you’re being a little narrow minded here. Genesis 1:14 states that part of the reason for the heavens is to mark sacred times and events and it does not restrict these signs to the children of Israel.
 January 30, 2015 at 12:09pm
I’m concerned with the loss of our cultural identity and the values that made this nation great, possible financial collapse, a nuclear Iran, the growing strength of terrorists organizations worldwide, the constant erosion of our personal liberties, the continued growth of a centralized powerful federal government not afraid to intimidate it’s citizens, etc., etc.
You’re concerned about whether you’ll be as rich as the doctor next door.
I realize that money is important. And I realize that we value fairness in this country. But I humbly suggest that we have bigger issues at this moment in history. The fact that republican candidates might not be discussing this particular issue might be more of a reflection on the current state of the world and less of a reflection on where they stand on gender based income disparities.
 January 30, 2015 at 9:56am
So the conservative media is not supposed to criticize conservative candidates? Really? That’s not journalism. That’s changing FOX into an extension of a political group. This is why I don’t watch NBC, CBS, ABC, etc…. because they have a double standard.
1) If you’re going to complain that 20% of Bush’s budget was borrowed, you should be up in arms about nearly 50% of Obama’s budget being borrowed.
2) If you’re going to complain bitterly about the price of gas while Bush is in office, you !$@^& well better do the same when a democrat is in office.
3) If you’re going to complain about the patriot act, you better complain just as loudly about NDAA.
4) If you’re going to complain about overreach when a republican is in office, you better do it when a democrat is in office.
5) If you’re going to read the names of every soldier killed every night when a republican is in office, you should continue that practice when a democrat enters office.
6) If you’re going to continually ridicule the gaffes of Dan Quayle, why would you continually ignore the gaffes of Joe Biden?
Do I really need to go on?
When I detect a bias in my news source, especially to this degree, I change news sources. If Fox starts giving public figures a pass because they align with a political agenda I will quit watching Fox just like I quit watching the others.
Its all fake and show biz why do you care so much about falsehoods? You should do independent research ALL NEWS networks are just lies. Get in touch with people from that part of the world and get the truth which is never like the news presents it…never.
Fox is far from conservative media. Moderate at best !
Good job on the hypocrisy. Also, no body count in the middle east and it is more than the Bush time if I am remembering correctly. They did that every day as well.
Totally good points in the list!
January 21, 2015 at 9:30am
I worked at HP during her tenure as CEO and I would not vote for her. No one in my lab was happy with her performance and we were all glad to see her go.
 January 20, 2015 at 6:12pm
“they found precisely the opposite of what they expected.” – blinknight
Because they were looking for evidence in the new kingdom. It doesn’t exist, because the exodus didn’t occur during the new kingdom.
The experts say there is no evidence of an exodus in the new kingdom. Those SAME experts say that in the middle kingdom a group of semitic people from Canaan settled and flourished in the Goshan area of Egypt and, near the end of the middle kingdom era and over a short period of time, with indications of playgue/disease/slavery, they left. Shortly after this time (let’s say roughly half a century) over a short period of time, several fortified cities in Canaan, including Jericho, were destroyed. Jericho in particular appeared to be destroyed in a manner consistent with the Bible text – the walls came down and then it was burned but one section of the city wall remained standing – with houses there actually built into the wall.
So why do they date the exodus to 1250 BC? Based on ancient biblical texts mentioning Ramses and assuming they were referring to Ramses II (the pharoah famous during the new kingdom) and not the god Ramses or just the modern name of an ancient location (updated by scribes in later years). But with such similarities between the biblical story and the archaeological evidence, doesn’t it seem likely that this dating is wrong and the exodus occurred during the middle kingdom??? The similarities are striking.
 January 20, 2015 at 5:17pm
It’s extremely difficult to prove a negative. At best you could say there is no evidence to support… But if you watched the movie they refer to a papyrus from the middle kingdom (middle, not new) that is a house slave list and roughly 70% of the names are semitic (and most of them are female) so I’m not sure how that fits in with your statements.
January 20, 2015 at 5:08pm
“It was merely taking what was already public information in the scientific world and packaging it in format for non-scientists.” – J-Mo
Did you think this movie was for experts?
“This movie’s marketting is such that…” – J-Mo
Your biggest complaint is about the movie’s marketing? I smell a troll…
 January 20, 2015 at 1:53pm
I’m a libertarian and I would vote for Cruz. Is he strictly a libertarian? No. Would he appeal to the libertarians? He appeals to me. I can’t speak for the group as a whole. Would I prefer someone closer to my ideal candidate? Of course but that is always true.
 January 20, 2015 at 1:45pm
“I am not sure how the SEEMINGLY “move of the goal post” will be accepted in the majority of university level departments, but eventually it will have to come out.” – Keres
The goal post here is the approximate time of the exodus. So you have to ask the question “What data set the goalpost?” The answer is: the bible. So if they don’t view the bible as a historical source, why did they accept that goal post (i.e. the approximate date of the exodus) in the first place? And if they do accept the bible as a historical text and 20 historical assertions from the bible line up with an exodus during the middle kingdom (along with the archaeological evidence) and only one verse lines up with an exodus during the new kingdom (and can be easily explained) why would you choose an exodus date during the latter period???
My conclusions: there’s not as much disagreement here as we have supposed.
 January 20, 2015 at 11:54am
He wasn’t looking for Moses. He was looking for evidence of the exodus.
If you watch the movie you’ll see that the leading egyptologists do believe that a large population of semitic people from Canaan did, indeed, inhabit Egypt in the middle kingdom period. And they agree that in the new kingdom there is absolutely no evidence of them. Where were these people located? In Goshan. Where did they go between the middle the new kingdom? They left. And by all evidence they left over a short period of time during a period of plagues/sickness.
And there is plenty of evidence of war and cities being conquered in Canaan at the end of the middle kingdom (but not in the new kingdom). Again, matching up with the exodus story taking place during the middle kingdom. Again, agreed upon by the experts in the field.
To sum up, the leading egyptologists would have a very different answer if you asked them if there was any evidence of a mass exodus of semitic people from Canaan at the end of the middle kingdom.
So, the real question becomes: Why have historians concluded that the exodus must have been during the new kingdom period? What was the evidence for that decision? Was it a faulty conclusion and is there any new evidence that brings these timelines into question?
January 20, 2015 at 11:10am
The central theme of the movie is that there is actually a lot of evidence for a mass exodus into Canaan by a semitic population PRIOR to 1400 BCE. And the evidence that people use to say the exodus must have occurred in the 1300-1200 BCE new kingdom era is what is flimsy.