1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Cheap Politicians

Francis W. Porretto Wrote: Sep 10, 2014 8:26 AM
"And nobody wants anarchy." A misstep, Dr. Sowell. Just as saying "everybody does it" only means "I do it," "Nobody wants X" only means "I don't want X." Especially if by "anarchy" you actually meant CHAOS.
In response to:

Why I Wrote 'Jesus on Trial'

Francis W. Porretto Wrote: Sep 09, 2014 12:00 PM
What is particularly pitiable about this arrogant rant is that despite the writer's pretensions to rationality and superiority, it manages to misstate (and therefore misconceive): -- the nature of faith; -- the domain of applicability of the process we call reason; -- the domain of applicability of definition! ...but this is typical of persons who ardently yearn for provable answers about all things, despite Man's inherent limitations and the enveloping limitations on any creature who lives in a time-bound universe. I've given up on attempting to educate such persons, as my time is limited and, when I'm confronted by hauteur such as his, my patience is in even shorter supply.
The evil at the heart of Islam -- *all* Islam -- is one of the most important topics in public discourse -- and the Mainstream Media, FOX News included, are determined that it shall not be discussed. Thank you, Miss West. Keep the faith.
"The month of August 2014 came near to producing the libertarian ideal -- next-to-no government." How on Earth could anyone make such a foolish statement? Did the alphabet agencies cease to regulate and enforce their decrees at gunpoint? Did the federal courts no longer sit? Did the IRS cease to enforce the tax laws? Did the FBI and CIA go completely inert? Was our magnificent military completely disbanded, all our men at arms sent home to their families to "study war no more?" And what about the state and local governments? What happened was a pause in **NEW** legislative and executive activity. All the "government" already in place remained in place and functioning -- and for my money, Mr. Murchison, you can have just about all of it; I'd prefer that it vanish like a bad dream.
Coulter's tone might have offended some, but she had an important point.: 1. Dr. Brantley chose to put himself in harm's way -- a very specific kind of harm. 2. He contracted a disease that's highly contagious, usually fatal, and very seldom relents. 3. Persons concerned for his life -- HIS life, mind you -- brought him and that highly contagious, usually fatal disease back to the U.S., where others would be exposed to it. In other words, the risk Dr. Brantley took became a risk he shared with the entire population of North America -- and the rest of us didn't volunteer. Had Dr. Brantley done medical charity work in the United States, none of the above would have happened. His intentions were all the best, I have no doubt. But now, because of him, the Ebola virus has been imported to North America. It will be a while before we know the full consequences.
Obama's legendary vindictiveness is a part of this, but there's also this: To lampoon Obama, if you once supported him, is to imply that your past support for him was an error...and there's nothing liberals hate more than admitting to an error. It abrades their veneer of intellectual and moral superiority.
Of all the "intermediating institutions" that provide alternative sources of authority and moral guidance, power-mongers and leftist ideologues hate Christianity the worst -- partly because Christ explicitly separated faith from the State. ("Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's" and "Whoever among you is without sin, let him cast the first stone.") But there's another reason as well: Politics, as Ann Coulter has noted, is a religion substitute for the Left. They can't stand the competition, because they know their "dispensation" to be inferior.
Public relations people feel they must always have the initiative -- their targets are not permitted to take the high ground or change the focus of conversation. To turn the tables on them in such a fashion is the most shocking experience to which they can be exposed. Well played, Mike!
Yet another excellent column, but I must quibble on a single point: MacGyver did NOT defuse bombs with saltwater taffy! It was well-chewed DoubleMint in all cases.
You can only make a case for banning something on the grounds that it can harm the voluntary, informed user if you're willing to see that argument applied to EVERYTHING that can or might harm such a user. Any other attitude betrays a deep hypocrisy behind which hides a Grundyism this nation cannot abide. The pursuit of intoxication is deplorable, even contemptible; let there be no doubt about that. But let's cease pretending that we can make people more self-respecting by force of law. It has never worked before, and it has little chance of working in the future.
1 - 10 Next