Previous 21 - 30 Next
In general I agree about some general national "service". However, a draft in time of declared war is both fair and reasonable because otherwise you get a free rider problem. Even in WWII, arguably our most unambiguous war and widely supported, 2/3s of all who served waited until receiving a draft notice before serving.
To my mind, gay marriage is a political issue, not a constitutional one. Regardless of how one looks at it, a straight man and a straight woman of child-bearing age, are uniquely situated and fundamentally different from all other types of couples - including sterile/infertile or elderly heterosexual couples - in that they and they alone can produce a child biologically their own offspring. Thus, certain rules (like co-sanguinity) apply only and thus unequally to them. It is therefore appropriate to give them a unique status; other straight couples are included because they share the same male-female characteristic and thus "fit in" with the rest; but they need not.
In response to:

Ain’t I A Woman?: Feminism Unleashed

amirvish Wrote: Oct 05, 2014 1:32 PM
Instead of pushing to be included in feminism, conservative women ought to simply say, "I am a woman. I'm human. I have the same rights as a man, but I am not identical to one. I am a woman." Whatever species of feminism one talks about - equity, gender etc, the essence of modern feminism is the belief that gender is somehow constructed and that actual, fundamental differences between the sexes do not exist. Some conservative feminists buy into this, if not explicitly, than implicitly. That's why they have trouble fighting it. But that said, why would any conservative woman want to be a feminist. Equal individual rights for all is one thing. It requires no movement. Anything beyond that i.e. comprehensive interchangeableness - including for example, women in the military - to be achieved through legislation is simply social engineering and all of it should be rejected.
In response to:


amirvish Wrote: Sep 29, 2014 11:20 AM
Although there some dispute, PTSD was at lower incidence rates in all previous wars, all of which were far more intense than the WOT. It is a real phenomenon, and lower rates in earlier conflicts may stem simply from under-reporting, but it is also possible that the far less intense, adversarial forms of training that replaced the old-fashioned ones (especially as the force went coed) are to blame. It's interesting that the highest rates are not amongst line troops, and that women suffer at rates higher than men.
I agree with Mr. Barone that the balance between central and local governments is hard to get right. I disagree it was the true issue here. Too many Scots like big government and too many blame Margaret Thatcher for finally pulling the plug on their inefficient and state-support industries back in the 1980s. It is easier to see that as English interference than the result of deeply flawed policies and attitudes that the Scots themselves thoroughly supported. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. Incidentally, we have a fully Federal system and a constitution, and both have been trampled by Progressives for most of the last century. The balance, therefore, needs to be both defined and obeyed.
In response to:

Why do Americans Hate America?

amirvish Wrote: Sep 18, 2014 10:22 AM
This question would be better directed at the entire Progressive left in our country. They claim to love our country, but in fact hate and want to change everything about it that makes it what it is.
In response to:

What Would Braveheart Do?

amirvish Wrote: Sep 16, 2014 5:42 PM
Pat misses a crucial distinction between our Declaration of Independence and the independence movements around much of the world: our Founders explicitly stated ways in which the British government had violated political and individual liberty, and based their case for the legitimacy of government on how well it performed its only true duty: the protection of our inalienable, natural, individual rights. Our entire theory of government rests on this. The Founders did not shout, "America! F*ck, yeah!" and base independence on race, religion, ethnicity or any other form of tribal style nationalism. The reality of blood, soil and language in Europe and elsewhere is real enough - and it may be better that foreign states founded on such a basis will work better than others. But it is wrong to equate that with our political foundation. And, in the case of Scotland, the reasons are utterly frivolous.
This is exactly what has happened in the armed forces with respect to standards, albeit without the involvement of the "Justice" Department. Despite legislation mandating equal treatment, the armed forces have used the equal effort concept to avoid having women fail in massive numbers, and they have lowered all standards too.
In response to:

Libertarians, Ferguson, and "Racism"

amirvish Wrote: Aug 25, 2014 4:41 PM
Racism is fundamentally the belief that the content of one's character is determined by the color of one's skin. It is wrong in the same sense that saying 2+2=5 is wrong; and it is morally wrong because it involves judging someone not on what they are but how they look. That said, the author is right that it is not the be-all-and-end-all of discussion: private citizens have rights and those - including association, contract and property - allow them to be as racist or not as they want. It is no crime to refuse to deal with someone for any reason, even a stupid one.
In response to:

Part One: The Problem With The Right

amirvish Wrote: Aug 15, 2014 6:04 PM
Well said.
If we elect our second affirmative action President, we will have richly deserved all that follows from it. "Fool me once, shame on you; Fool me twice, shame on me."
Previous 21 - 30 Next