Previous 11 - 20 Next
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.
In response to:

Evil Bullies

Francis W. Porretto Wrote: Aug 18, 2014 9:15 AM
"But, where Christianity’s hero turned water into wine for a party, Islam’s hero would have punished people for drinking it." "He [God] has filled His world with pleasures." -- C. S. Lewis, "The Screwtape Letters" "There is no room for play in Islam...Islam is deadly serious -- about everything." -- Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini You pays your money and takes your choice.
In response to:

Conservatives' Culture Bubble

Francis W. Porretto Wrote: Aug 18, 2014 9:10 AM
"Conservatives have tried to make movies with an underlying or even overt conservative or libertarian message. More often than not, it just doesn't work." Indeed -- and anyone familiar with the history of cinema should have known better. "Message" fiction, whether visual, auditory, or printed, cannot succeed unless it is first and foremost vastly entertaining and true-to-human-life. There are hardly enough hours in the day to get through all the unpleasantnesses we must endure; few of us will submit to being preached at in place of entertainment, regardless of the purity of the maker's motives.
This should become a national cause celebre, on the order of Zola's "J'Accuse" in defense of Dreyfus.
Parkinson's Law: "Work expands to fill the time available for its completion." So when there's no work to be done -- or when there's no completion date -- what then?
"There will be real social costs to legalization." Perhaps not, on a sufficiently long baseline. There were short-term social costs to the repeal of alcohol prohibition, too. But social forces that counterbalanced them came into play within a few years, and presently things were better than before. Atop that: Prohibition required a Constitutional amendment. Why didn't the same requirement apply to the federal War on Drugs? Where's the Constitutional authorization for that?
In response to:

Patrolmen Without Borders

Francis W. Porretto Wrote: Aug 06, 2014 6:56 AM
This calls to mind Samuel Francis's conception of "anarcho-tyranny:" a condition in which the laws that would actually defend the innocent are left unenforced, while the power of the State is used to ride roughshod over private citizens even in their most private comings and goings, for the State's own profit and the aggrandizement of its masters. May God and our ancestors forgive us for what we have allowed to consume our freedom.
"...human beings are awful, flawed creatures..." Speak for yourself, there, Bubba!
In response to:

Suicide By Stupidity

Francis W. Porretto Wrote: Jul 31, 2014 7:52 AM
I don't often disagree with Derek Hunter, but this contretemps demands more clarity than he's afforded it. First: Has the president committed impeachable offenses? I certainly think so, particularly his unilateral rewriting of the terms of the Affordable Care Act, his decree that parts of the immigration laws not be enforced, and his unwillingness to act on the Operation Fast And Furious mega-scandal that cost the life of Brian Terry and others. So there's sufficient legal basis for his impeachment and trial. Second: What is the most effective way for the Republicans to draw a clear distinction -- the sort of "bold colored differences" of which Reagan spoke -- between themselves and the Democrats? Clearly, it would be to stand fast on Constitutional principles, which compel them to oppose Obama's usurpations of Congressional power and prerogatives. It's well established that only such a clear contrast between the parties galvanizes electoral sentiment. So impeachment and trial would probably be to the GOP's benefit in November. Third: Would the Democrats in the Senate vote against Obama's conviction? Almost certainly, which would reinforce those "bold colored differences" by making it plain that the Democrats are animated not by love of country or fidelity to the Constitution, but by their desire to retain power. They would be revealed as the ultimate partisans, unwilling to do what's right should it cost their co-partisan in the Oval Office his job. Therefore, the failure to convict and remove Obama would rebound further to the electoral benefit of the GOP. So: What else is pertinent to this issue?
In response to:

The Loophole is Obama

Francis W. Porretto Wrote: Jul 31, 2014 7:39 AM
I had to read Coulter's argument twice before I caught the essential discrepancy. The terms of the law direct that if an ilegal alien child DOES have parents or guardians available in the U.S., then he IS to be deported rather than admitted. That might strike many readers as irrational, the reverse of what one would have expected, but those are the black-letter terms of the law. Amazing -- and another demonstration of the value of Ann Coulter, whose research and legal acumen are unequaled in the Punditocracy.
In response to:

Lambs to the GMO Slaughter

Francis W. Porretto Wrote: Jul 29, 2014 4:48 AM
Fear mongering from Chuck Norris? Did I wake up in an alternate universe? Quick: Check whether Mr. Spock has a beard!
Previous 11 - 20 Next