Previous 11 - 20 Next
First of all, only some social or moral issues are also political and legal ones. Abortion involves issues of human life and thus is one that covers this range: if a fetus is a human being at a particular stage in its development - and objectively I think it is - then clearly whether it is protected or not is a legitimate point. Political and legal change, though, will requiring changing minds on this point first, just as Wilberforce did on slavery. Emphasizing this politically without first changing minds culturally is poor strategy. Similarly with gay marriage: the state has a certain interest in marriage but unless you win the broader debate first, you will fail to win politically. Other issues may or may not be both cultural and legitimate political issues. This doesn't mean giving up on social issues, it just means putting them in perspective and winning the right battles in the right sequence. We could win an argument about fiscal and personal responsibility and look to cut the welfare state. That would empower those who practice traditional values and penalize those who don't. It would force the latter to explain why their life choices should be subsidized. Likewise, we might win a reversal of no fault divorce on basic grounds of contract and fairness. So, let's pick our battles and, without renouncing certain issues, focus where we have to.
In response to:

Millennials Playing the Confidence Game

amirvish Wrote: Mar 14, 2014 12:51 PM
Not sure why Ms. Chavez makes the claim the traditional family was a stereotype no one wants to go back to. We have a lot of people who have no experience of that model but who have been told by the likes of Betty Friedan that it was a comfortable concentration camp, a horror to be avoided at all costs. Just like modern educators think emphasizing fundamentals means by rote learning and have no sense of how a traditional classroom actually functioned. They just know it's wrong. Now, not everyone was happy under those models, and there were some features to avoid, but there were also real strengths. Aristotle once noted you achieve real happiness by acting virtuously, not by doing the things that make you feel good. This is a lesson more than just today's millenials would do well to heed. I'd also take small exception to the claim about male-female education. Yes, more women are now graduating from college than men. I'd say that with two engineering degrees, I'm vastly better educated than a woman graduate of law school, journalism, business school, let alone or any of half a dozen fluff majors. Only the doctors and those in the sciences would compare, and most of the latter - outside of the life sciences - are men.
In response to:

War on Women

amirvish Wrote: Mar 11, 2014 11:42 PM
Now, if only John would turn his attention to the farce that is a coed military and all of the double and lowered standards established to ensure women "succeed" he would do us all yet another invaluable service. That would indeed be brave reporting, even for him.
Like it or not, the sexes are perceived as different and not just by people of the opposite sex. Ms. Sandberg et al can scream and shout all they want, but just because they think women should or should not be seen in a certain way doesn't mean other people are obliged to agree.
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.
Previous 11 - 20 Next