Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Hillary, Hitler & Cold War II

amirvish Wrote: Mar 09, 2014 10:33 PM
As with a lot of stuff by Pat, there are a few valid points overwhelmed by illogic. Hitler was bent on conquest; the pan-Germanic actions were simply rationalizations for initial operations. It's the same with German grievances post WWI. Yes, the Peace of Versailles could have and should have been better than it was, but again, it was a rationalization. The Germans started WWI and lost, and they needed to pay some price. The real problem was that their faces were not rubbed in it on the battlefield, so this national humiliation, stab in the back nonsense (of which there is much in Russia today, too) gained ground. Comparisons to the Cold War are absurd: we sought to utterly destroy the Soviet Union and did. If anything, we did not rub their noses in it enough and thus to this day Russians (and their enablers here) duck the enormous moral depravity and culpability of that system. Expanding NATO may or may not have been prudent (Poland and Czechoslovakia yes, the Baltics maybe not), but it was not rubbing their noses in it: they lost and were wholly in the wrong. They need to face it.
I'm with the author as far as Republicans should not attack conservatives nor support initiatives that penalize success. I don't agree that any changes to the military budget and pension system are inherently wrong. No one gets a full pension after 20 years in the private sector and once upon a time, the military required 30 years of service (which would mean people who enlisted at 18 at only 48 when they get out). The military has become extremely expensive in terms of personnel and by no means all of that is justifiable on the grounds of a volunteer force. Incentives should be changed to reward long-term service with lower base pay. Troops should return to living in barracks and post-service educational benefits should be based on length of service. In particular, the military needs to get away from pitching service as an opportunity for benefits that will help you in the real world. It is not supposed to be a stopping place on the road to somewhere else. We could also stand to cut the officer corps by at least 50% and take a much harder look at the costs and benefits of women serving.
In response to:

The Trees

amirvish Wrote: Feb 24, 2014 12:27 PM
Atheism is an integral part of Marxism but atheism is not in any way inherently Marxist. It is simply the conclusion that there is no God: a range of politics and philosophies can follow from that. And, it should not need pointing out that a belief in God manifests itself in a number of different politics and philosophies too. There are, in case you haven't heard, Christian socialists. FDR once described himself as "A Christian and a democrat." The Founders were not atheists (some were deists) but they had a very different take on politics from FDR and the progressives, and they were not religious fundamentalists.
In response to:

The Trees

amirvish Wrote: Feb 24, 2014 12:24 PM
As a matter of historical fact, Rand did study Aristotle and Plato at the University of St. Petersburg, shortly before the Soviets forced out all "bourgeois" students and restructured the program. Rand's work emphasizes reason and the fact that man has a higher consciousness. Hers is not a materialist philosophy and her atheism is different from that which animates Marxism.
In response to:

Women, Balancing Careers With Motherhood

amirvish Wrote: Feb 18, 2014 5:00 PM
Agree. It is only the feminists own self-hatred (dare one say misogyny) that causes them to value traditional women's roles as inferior. And, as a matter of general fact, each sex is superior and inferior to the other in certain ways and roles, just as no individual is good at everything.
In response to:

Women, Balancing Careers With Motherhood

amirvish Wrote: Feb 18, 2014 4:58 PM
One of the great ironies of feminism is that the behavior on which they think women should arrange their lives is that of men (or at least how feminists think men arrange their lives).
The status of marriage in the law is a political decision, not a rights issue. Objectively, a union between a man and a woman who are of an age to produce children - whether they want to or not - has a characteristic that distinguishes it from all other unions (including some other heterosexual ones). Thus, the limits on marriage (e.g. against marrying a close relative) have meaning and applicability only to them. Thus, they will always be a separate and unequally treated class of people, and the only one that generates a compelling state interest in their relationship. The 14th amendment does not mandate that one cannot treat people differently when there is an actual basis for doing so. It is on this basis that those opposed to gay marriage should fight it, but also note that if enough people want it, the law can be changed to accommodate that preference. Judges, however, cannot read it backwards into the Constitution.
In response to:

Is the Tea Party's Dream an Illusion?

amirvish Wrote: Feb 17, 2014 12:46 PM
As Pat's old boss Ronald Reagan once said, "If not us, then whom? If not now, then when?" The country is broke and the entitlements are fundamentally unsound. There are ways to dismantle them that will limit the pain to those now totally dependent on them. These can and should be explained. If nothing else, one can ask, "How much Social Security will there be if we go bankrupt and grandma has to eat dogfood?" There is a difference between being willing to make a hard, but necessary, argument and being too gutless to make it at all.
In response to:

Will States' Rights Go to Pot?

amirvish Wrote: Jan 03, 2014 4:41 PM
I mostly agree with Mr. Goldberg's column. The exception is the take on the rights explosion of the 1960s and 70s. Although he correctly notes that most of these rights have been framed as "the individual against the government" a more accurate take would be "the individual against reality." That's because those advocating these rights have generally been very inconsistent and, in the case of those on the left, been all too happy to violate actual rights when the exercise of those rights is seen to obstruct the very right to judge or not associate with people that Mr. Goldberg refers to.
And so the claim that a common standard will be used falls...again. It has already been trashed in every other area of the military where women serve as "equals." The bottom line is that the sexes differ enough physically that only about 2% of women equal the male average. One can have a coed military with those numbers if one wants, but one can't have 15% of the force female without the majority being inferior to virtually all of the men. And that means no promotion or career opportunities for women officers, military feminists whose desires - and inability to accept that they are innately inferior to their male counterparts - are driving all of this.
Previous 11 - 20 Next