Impossibly reductive and simplistic. Too much emphasis on geography, almost none on actual geopolitical players and involvements. HUGE lacuna and complete misreading on French colonialism and the French Atlantic. Stratfor needs some better people informing them on France and Africa, for sure.

Concealed carry in measurable studies has proven a decrease in violent crime. This study, on the other hand (which you apparently missed, but thx for the link) admits on the FIRST PAGE that it was not using any direct porn consumption data, but was rather guesstimating that porn usage as a percentage of internet use is static. Seems your the one with no evidence on your side here. Please don't try to confuse us with your faux comprehension of the scientific method and logical thought processes. TH readers see through your tripe.

There you've done it. You've gone and asked a biased columnist and the scientists he cites to actually take PERTINENT information into account in getting at the truth behind a phenomenon. How dare you! ;-)

Chapman, you are right that the link between porn and rape is not as strong as the 1980s hypothesis suggested. But yo COMPLETELY misrepresent its effects. Just looking at the case for men viewing naked women, it objectifies women in their minds, and leads not to violence, but to an inability to maintain reciprocal selflessness in relationships with them. In most cases, it also leaves the men feeling less manly, less worthy of a real woman, less virile, more accepting of other addictions, more passivity in other aspects of life. So the correct prediction would be that violent crime WOULD decline. But you should ALSO predict an INCREASE in divorce, a disintegration of the family, an increase in welfare dependence, etc. THOSE stats are ALL up

As a Christian myself, I leave judgments of eternal mercy (or or condemnation!) to God. And I thank God that another force of evil has been stopped, by wildly chanting USA in the streets and generally celebrating the triumph of good over evil, or free peoples over tyrannical forces. I daresay, though, based on the evidence, Jewish Prager understand Christianity better than you.

Amen, n. Before the primaries is EXACTLY the time to disagree between conservatives/libertarians. It doesn't help Obama one whit, and only strengthens us, as our ideas resolve into that which Obama can't overcome.

You misunderstand the very concept of freedom. A free world can only exist where the people choose morality without govt imposition. It is not a dangerous world (although extreme evil will be present and predicted within the theory), it is a safe world. What you advocate is an anarchic world. Anarchy never was freedom. It devolves to rule by the strongest. I am not advocating that the govt should help John's family. I'm saying that the govt should make prostitution illegal and therefore make John afraid of breaking the law, which, for some, is a necessary condition for moral behavior. that's the best way for John's innocent child to avoid the consequences John's bad behavior would impose upon him. But given your malliteracy and...

Now we're getting somewhere! In order: 1. Adams didn't have planes, phones, or the internet. I'm not FOR "going abroad in search of monsters to destroy", I'm for not being afraid to stand up for what's right here or anywhere. Globalization has put the US all over the world, and the whole world in the US. We're part of the world, and should use persuasion and influence properly to make it better. 2. Show me one person whose rights have been abrogated by the Patriot Act. 3. You have no understanding of totalitarianism or its roots. The USSR was not trying to "impose" "global democratic revolution". You have fallen for their own agitprop. (which, given your reading skills, doesn't surprise me). America's goals in foreign military...

Logic, reason, and critical thinking are impossible without literacy. Exposure to Paul leads to a type of selective immunity to words and context I've coined "malliteracy". This inevitably leads to extreme defensiveness, and inability to deal with substantive critique.

Can you read? "If you want to mess around with prostitiutes great but both parties should deal with the consequences of their behavior on their own" How does this sentence not presuppose that all of the consequences are contained between John and prostitute. John's innocent child certainly has some consequences that neither prostitute nor John's "private" behavior can adequately "deal with the consequences" of for him. Guess I struck a nerve, eh?