Previous 21 - 30 Next
Obama disagrees with AE, but for all the wrong reasons. I would have no qualms about voting once again for Reagan, though I think that his "city on a hill" was, in some ways, an intellectually unfortunate flourish. The real point, I think, is that Americans are (or were) exceptional, but not quite for the reasons that people usually give. Conversely, the reasons that they usually do give do nothing to help us retain that which did make us somewhat exceptional.
In practice, how would that work? Would the judgments of ecclesiastical tribunals be enforceable by secular authority? In theory, I have little or no problem with your suggestion. As a practical matter, I fear that your suggestion is about 500 years too late.
A man and a woman, whether or not they are actually fertile, generally have what it takes to do that which typically results in children. If they do not, that is generally not obvious, hence no one ought to make it his business to inquire. A man and a man, or a woman and a woman, on the other hand, are radically incapable of doing that which results in children. No questioning or inquiry or invasion of privacy is needed, because the matter is obvious.
It says that the typical neo-con concept of AE is intellectually false and politically pernicious.
Often enough, we read things that are true, but have been said many times before, or that are new, but false. This is an unusual article, in that it says things that are both unusual and worth saying. The U.S. is exceptional in that it did--for a long while, at any rate--a far better job than its Mother Country or any other European country of preserving the moral, legal, and political patrimony of the West. Of course, the typical proponents of AE would not agree with that, any more than would the typical liberal opponents of AE.
In response to:

Much Ado About Nothing

Troglodite Wrote: Jul 03, 2014 10:15 PM
You are correct: Hobby Lobby is probably not complicit in Chinese crimes because it buys and pays for good made in China, even if some of the money that the Chinese earn thereby is used for evil ends. On the other hand, Hobby Lobby would be complicit in abortions if it directly paid for insurance policies that cover them. Do I have reason to suspect that Shedlock, as a good little libertarian, wants to find a reason--any one will do, I suppose--to smear Christians as inconsistent and hypocritical?
"We can get even with the GOP establishment later; we need to beat the Democrats first." That sounds plausible. "If we are too single-minded about beating the Democrats, we will never find a good time to fix the GOP." That would also be reasonable, if someone said it. "If we do not fix the GOP, there will be little difference between it and the Democrats and it will not matter that much who wins." A fair amount of truth to that. The outcome has to be a series of judgment calls, based on the candidate and the opposition and the district or state and on some other factors. In my own case, I largely agree with the columnist, though not totally. I would hold my nose and vote for most GOP'ers. If I were an Arizonan, however, I would not vote for McCain. At this point, if I were as Mississippian, I would not vote for Cochran. If some others draw their line somewhere else, I will not criticize them.
In response to:

G'ddam the Liberals

Troglodite Wrote: Jun 29, 2014 3:05 PM
I am not sure that I was actually looking for much or for anything in "Atlas." I think, rather, that it came out and bit me in the nose. I am not going to dispute about literary tastes or about the literary quality of a book that I read as long ago as I read "Atlas." In general, though, I find myself approaching ANY entertainment, whether written or on the screen, with a massive dose of skepticism and caution. Almost always, that which is entertaining is the sugar that makes the poison pill go down the more easily. Much of the time, the poison is simply that we become inured and accustomed to the evil and the debased by too much exposure to it. As Alexander Pope once wrote (more or less): Evil is a monster of such frightful mien, As to be hated needs but to be seen, But seen too oft, familiar with her face, we first endure, then pity, then embrace.
In response to:

G'ddam the Liberals

Troglodite Wrote: Jun 29, 2014 2:58 PM
rmott: My memory of "Atlas" is faded, so perhaps you can set me straight here. Did not "Atlas" contains denunciations equally of "mystery" and "muscle"? And did not Dagney Taggart hop into bed with one male hero after they other as each successive one showed up and demonstrated that he was more of a macho, libertarian superman than the previous one? If my memory does not serve me wrong here, Rand was vending poisons under the pretense that they were cordials.
In response to:

G'ddam the Liberals

Troglodite Wrote: Jun 29, 2014 2:47 PM
rmott: Years ago, at the behest of a libertarian friend, I read "Atlas Shrugged." Though I occasionally use the metaphor contained in the title, I did not find the novel to be riveting: I thought that the thing was over-long, turgid, bombastic, and populated with characters who were almost uniformly unpleasant or even repulsive. I also seem to recall that denunciations of "mystery" and "muscle" were prominent in the book, with "mystery" obviously meaning religion.
In response to:

G'ddam the Liberals

Troglodite Wrote: Jun 29, 2014 2:27 PM
rmott: If, as an old catechism had it, we were created to "know, love, and serve God and be happy with him in paradise," then a systematic and coherent intellectual and moral system that is "a bit wacko" about religion is necessarily going to be, as a whole, "a bit wacko." This does not mean, of course, than Rand was not right about various things--not least her reported characterization of libertarians as "right-wing hippies." Still, it seems to me that, most of the time that Rand was right, others had said the same things before her and had done so quite well: Aristotle, Adam Smith, Hayek, etc., who were not so vulnerable to charges of being "a bit wacko." Rand is as persistently over-rated in the minds of her acolytes as Ransom is in his own mind.
Previous 21 - 30 Next