1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Islamology 101

LonfromPen Wrote: Dec 06, 2012 11:55 AM
By the end, the discussion of shariah is so facile that it would include the great majority of Muslims, even though the great majority of Muslims are not part of anything related to al Qaeda. It is to Brennan's credit that he is trying to protect us from May's band of ignorance even in an article from May.
In response to:

Islamology 101

LonfromPen Wrote: Dec 06, 2012 11:53 AM
It is good that haters of Muslims like May now feel the need to deny that that is what they are. The next step would be to make arguments which don't turn around and make that clear. Kremlinology (more common than Sovietology) was an attempt to understand what a particular secretive government was doing. May begins by pretending he is only after a small group of Muslims waging war against us, but throughout the article this expands so that diverse groups not all of whom are doing anything against us all wind up falling under the banner. To compare studying all of these groups to Sovietology requires a complete misunderstanding of what Sovietology was, or what the Muslim threat is, or both.
In response to:

Islamology 101

LonfromPen Wrote: Dec 06, 2012 11:53 AM
It is good that haters of Muslims like May now feel the need to deny that that is what they are. The next step would be to make arguments which don't turn around and make that clear. Kremlinology (more common than Sovietology) was an attempt to understand what a particular secretive government was doing. May begins by pretending he is only after a small group of Muslims waging war against us, but throughout the article this expands so that diverse groups not all of whom are doing anything against us all wind up falling under the banner. To compare studying all of these groups to Sovietology requires a complete misunderstanding of what Sovietology was, or what the Muslim threat is, or both.
In response to:

Killing Them Softly?

LonfromPen Wrote: Dec 05, 2012 4:18 PM
I would be impressed if that was his actual point, but I doubt it. Do you really think he is advocating letting parents to choose euthanasia if they think that is best for a dying child? I find that unlikely. My impression is that his problem is with anyone making the choice he doesn't want them to make. But if he has a system for maximizing the ability of parents to make these calls I would be all for it. Oddly he does not seem bothered by the current system in which insurance companies play the role that government panels play in Britain.
Conservatives write an oddly large number of columns abut this subject if Brown thinks it is a yawn. Somehow I doubt that she would be as bored by learning that schools are taking children to plays whose message is the irrelevance of God for moral matters. But then I admit I have trouble getting worked up by a Charlie Brown Christmas because its message is strong despite that last quote. And it is nice to see Brown arguing that Churches should not get tax exempt status since Christianity is not a religion. Or was that not a claim that she would make consistently?
Here is a list of the figures on the Supreme Court Building as important lawgivers, "Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius, and Augustus." and "Justinian, Muhammad, Charlemagne, John of England, Louis IX of France, Hugo Grotius, Sir William Blackstone, John Marshall, and Napoleon" They don't seem to fit your pattern.
The best way to understand this is probably to think about your own ways of doing this. If one reads the Bible one finds rules of the proper ways to run a system of slavery. I assume that you do not actually think that slavery is moral. But clearly that judgment cannot come from accepting the laws in the old testament as allowing one to read right and wrong off of them, because if you did you would have to decide that slavery is acceptable, and that seems unlikely. So the same kinds of moral reasoning that you use to decide that slavery is wrong despite what the Bible says, atheists use to determine what is right and wrong, without thinking the Bible is the starting point.
The best way to understand this is probably to think about your own ways of doing this. If one reads the Bible one finds rules of the proper ways to run a system of slavery. I assume that you do not actually think that slavery is moral. But clearly that judgment cannot come from accepting the laws in the old testament as allowing one to read right and wrong off of them, because if you did you would have to decide that slavery is acceptable, and that seems unlikely. So the same kinds of moral reasoning that you use to decide that slavery is wrong despite what the Bible says, atheists use to determine what is right and wrong, without thinking the Bible is the starting point.
In response to:

Fiscal Cliff Notes: Part II

LonfromPen Wrote: Dec 05, 2012 11:26 AM
Sowell thinks that 2006 is the year after the 2001 tax cuts? There is a clever trick here. The CBO thinks that massive tax cuts create deficits. The evidence for this is that massive tax cuts tend to be followed by increased deficits as happened in the Bush years and the Reagan years. But part of the trick is that Bush and Reagan also increased spending, that is they went with massive amounts of stimulus, which of course increases tax collection since spending on designing missile systems employs a lot of engineers who pay taxes. Conservatives then pretend that all of that spending had no effect on the economy and credit the rising taxes to the tax cuts. Most economists rightly laugh at this.
In response to:

Grant's Greatest Regret

LonfromPen Wrote: Dec 05, 2012 11:19 AM
An interesting story, and well told. A good column from Jacoby.
1 - 10 Next