1 - 10 Next
Um, no ... it's AGEIST! An far less egregious crime, from all I've been told. :-)
In response to:

World’s Greatest Democracy?

Greg3008 Wrote: Oct 23, 2014 4:01 PM
"As Nancy Pelosi said, "We had to pass it so we can see what's in it". Talk about arrogance, they didn't even know what was in the bill, only that it in their pea-brains they had to pass something. And it mattered not one iota that all the polls were saying that a large majority of America rejected ObamaCare." In the end, they really were right though - *weren't* they? It is we who are mistaken in thinking that it matters even a little bit that "a large majority of America rejected ObamaCare." We are now on track for it to continue to increasingly impact our ability to get healthcare - particularly as we age - what everyone wanted ("See! See! This is NOT right at all!") was completely overruled by our moral and intellectual superiors in Washington. I don't think their objective was ever to get us to like it, I think the objective was to impose it on us - and, in that, they COMPLETELY succeeded. While our complaints and our conservative talk shows and our conservative columnists may be an annoyance to those who are in power, in the end, they are of no real consequence. Reading and writing and complaining "keeps us busy" (like small children), but the "fundamental transformation of America" continues unabated.
In response to:

Shakespeare and "Death with Dignity"

Greg3008 Wrote: Oct 16, 2014 5:27 PM
Really a nice column ...
I understand the author's ultimate conclusion, but we should still be fearful of such social engineering - in this case an attempt to adjudicate the so-called 'hook-up culture' in such a way as to make it undesirable to participate - but at what cost? While I abhor these mores, I don't think the oversight of bureaucrats will bring anything other than politics and additional suffering into our world - and prefer to see their powers limited, rather than expanded.
Most Republicans who are headed in the direction of libertarianism are not libertines by any means ... they are simply noting that any time now that the government imposes a set of values or a worldview by force, it is ALWAYS to impose the values of the secular left. Better that we diminish the State's influence in this arena before it's too late. Rather than seeking to cede authority for most of our personal moral choices, we ought to all individually take responsibility for living virtuous lives and transmitting our moral values into the culture around us. It is true that libertarianism will never create a moral populace, but neither will imposing laws the masses disagree with - they simply ignore them, just as our nation's leaders do (think immigration laws, intimidating white voters in Pennsylvania). The laws traditional Americans would be inclined to support (that the columnist seems to be worried that we're not going to have) are no longer laws that are going to be passed - or even tolerated - in today's cultural climate, anyway. There are also proportionally fewer people who think like we do every year - better that we win people's hearts than seek to seize the reins of political power to enforce a set of laws the masses increasingly don't agree with. There is a carefully cultivated fear of 'religion' among the masses, and hostility toward it is increasingly common (note how many posters equate Christianity with Muslim terrorism). If our ideas are really superior, we should seek to win in the marketplace of ideas. I am also concerned about the waning influence of religion in America (I see it as a primary root cause for our loss of a moral and civil society), but I don't equate that with a need for government to dictate its values to me - because they're not the same as mine ... or as the columnist's.
If you're looking for males to treat females differently than other males (as in, hitting them is utterly off limits), you would do well *not* to insist that they be thought of as being exactly the same as males. Of course, though most on the 'other side' could understand that logic, they would, nonetheless, simply choose to be "morally outraged" by it. Everything's a sham now ... and the dismantling of a once great culture continues.
"We need to get ungovernable." I LOVE that kind of thinking! Deep, thoughtful, and bound to make everyone's lives SO much better! :o
In response to:

WWI Demons Live

Greg3008 Wrote: Aug 07, 2014 7:13 PM
This is a great piece. Though I long felt the disinterest in the First World War that the author describes – while being interested in virtually everything that happened on both sides of it – In the end, I have ended up reading more and more about this particular era. These were people who were much like us, living in a world that seemed full of promise – but who got to see it (and often their own lives) destroyed at the behest of, as the author says, "aristocrats in funny clothes." The dysfunctional assumptions we make about what the world is supposed to be like – or has to look like – were born in no small measure during and as a result of the things that happened during these years. And that war serves as an object lesson as to just how dangerous and stupid it is (and how tragic it can be) for our leaders to whip up the masses into an angry froth in order to further their own political ends. Our own world is not unlike the tinderbox of 100 years ago, and, once again, those who are in charge of it are in the process of destabilizing everything and setting it all ablaze. People are angry and afraid, and the situation seems increasingly hopeless ... which serves to create a situation where a 'strong leader' may be able to get away with pretty much anything, as long as he promises to fix what's wrong with everything.
A quote from Fyodor Dostoevski that appears in Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals": "Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future." In other words, a government needs to create a dizzying array of seemingly insoluble problems - until finally the masses simply throw up their hands in fear and hopelessness and just give up - which results in a vacuum where the government can do pretty much *anything* it wants. Fear, hopelessness, anger, and powerlessness ... sound like anywhere you know?
During the first century, the church was radically different from the culture. Then we had Christendom / Western Civilization - where there was a broad cultural consensus that defined biblical morality as the societal standard. Christians got used to this arrangement (which was always a mix of pros & cons), however, and has now come to the conclusion that, as the culture abandons traditional Christian (biblical) morality, that we are to chase after it - pop culture has inexplicably become 'standard' to which many churches / Christians believe we are to adhere - to ensure that we don't miss any chances to get and keep more 'followers.' :o
1 - 10 Next