We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Brooks' naivete is usually depressing for me. He needs to spend a month on the streets of Waterville, Maine (no, not in the pot smoke-infused glades of the Colby campus) if he wants to get it. Academics cannot inform him. He needs to chat with the single 22 year-old chickie with a nose ring and tats, on disability for ADD and substance abuse, with three out-of-control kids, with an entrepreneur brother who has a meth lab, a Dad in jail, and an obese 42 year-old mother on "disability" with a "bad back." This is a choice of "life-style" that even Murray cannot comprehend. "Free To Be You and Me." People "find themselves" in different ways...and these folks have "social capital" - just not the sort Murray and Brooks have. They know how to survive, how to have fun, and how to work the system to their advantage.
Barack’s Smug Assault on Freedom of Religion Isn’t Just Anti-American—It’s Unforgivable
Progressives, would assent, that is, to one side of the equation, the side that deployed all those nice-sounding words: Life! Liberty! Happiness! Even the Acquisition of Property (so long as it wasn’t too much). What’s not to like?
What guaranteed all those lovely things was the other side of the equation, limited government, i.e., government that did some few things but expressly did not do other things, not because they weren’t worth doing but because 1) they were outside the scope of a government that was limited by design to foster freedom and 2) to unchain government would be to undermine freedom. It was just this, Mr. Rahe points out, that “the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church forgot.
That's an argument for government control of churches? Christianity 101, Mrs. S: We are all sinners, and we all disappoint God (and ourselves) with our choices and our thoughts. Otherwise, no need for salvation. I think she is an idiot.
From the shortage of white males on campus, here is his description of feminized teaching. See if you can spot the similarity to a certain climate science controversy.
By contrast, the feminine approach will stress social etiquette--woe to those who interrupts the speaker with, "there's no hard evidence for that, so let's move on." And unlike a male-dominated discussion, everyone, regardless of background and expertise, is permitted to "share" their views and then is thanked for sharing. Consensus-building is central and those rejecting harmony will be castigated as disruptive. Personal relationship often shape discussions--one never disputes friends even if one sharply disagrees and being attacked, no matter how mild, can destroy a friendship. Needless to say, everybody taking a turn to speak can make for long, rambling meetings.
Also, in the shortage of males on campus, the author worries about successful alumni donating when the males, who concentrate in wealth generating majors, are made to feel unwelcome.
He misses the real danger to the "university" from this development. It's not that they won't donate, it is that white, hetero males made unwelcome on campus will be a huge pool of students for online education. Quick question, between the male and female mind, which flourishes in an independent, objective, argumentative field that lends itself to objective testing? Which are the courses most likely to be the first offered online?
The Catholic bishops are getting what they deserve according to George Will? I agree. So will the doctors at my HMO, Kaiser Permanente, when ObamaCare makes the practice of medicine intolerable to them because of constant bureaucratic meddling and endless rule making. That's what I told my primary care physician the last time I saw him: Kaiser was a big supporter of ObamaCare, and you're gonna get what you deserve from allowing Kaiser to offer up that support.
Watched the whole video. It's from 1978! MF (the Other MF, I mean) certainly understood how people behave as economic entities/agents. The warnings---or predictions---at the end of the video, issued by a prominent physician in Sweden, are something my doctor/s fail to appreciate.
1) Birth control is not a women's health issue. Women who conceive are healthy. If pregnancy risks a woman's health over and above the usual risks then it's a health issue, but such cases are rare.
2) The fact that most RCC women use BC is a matter between the RCC and their female parishioners. The government wants to make it a matter between the RCC, the women and the government. If you read the founders of this country's opinion on the matter you'll see that the structure of the First Amendment was intended to protect the Church from State interference as much as it was to protect the State from Church interference. This seems to me to be a prime example.