Join Ricochet or renew and get 1 yearof National Review/Digital as a bonus!
End of sdb's followed conversation feed
This is not really fair. Here's the quote from the article:
"Soon they were all praying together, while a protective cocoon of Tebow’s people formed around the pair, becoming huffy when a couple of reporters stopped to observe."
I have no dog in this fight. I don't like the Times, and I don't really care one way or the other about Tebow. But you don't do yourself any favors when you don't portray things accurately. "Stopping to observe" is not "intervening." You're just throwing red meat to the dogs here so everybody can unload on the Times.
As with so many things, Samuel Johnson said it best:
How small of all that human hearts endure
That part which laws or kings can cause or cure!
Still to ourselves in every place ensigned
Our own felicity we make or find.
Tommy De Seno:
To get an atmosphere and the proper mix of chemicals by chance takes odds that would baffle the average mind.
Current estimates are that there are between 10^22 and 10^24 stars in the universe. Those numbers are pretty baffling to the average mind (i.e., mine), but they suggest that if it really were a matter of chance, there would still be plenty of opportunity for it to have happened many times. But I'm not sure that it's a matter of chance. There is not an infinite number of elements, and the limited number of elements that do exist do not occur with equal frequency. What I'm getting at is that the reason our atmosphere and our mix of chemicals is what it is was not a random occurrence. It reflects the relative abundance in the universe of hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon, and oxygen. Planets with a makeup roughly similar to our own are more likely than planets made up from the less abundant elements.
Interesting, thank you. I guess everyone I've ever encountered who thinks about it falls into the camp of being genuinely curious. Not sure I've ever met anyone who "places hope" in intelligent alien life. Do you mean in the sense that they think such alien life would somehow solve our problems, tell us the secret of life, etc.? I just hope that if intelligent aliens do exist, they don't eat us.
raycon: "We grow justly weary of our politics. But we must remember this: Politics — in all its grubby, grasping, corrupt, contemptible manifestations — is sovereign in human affairs. Everything ultimately rests upon it." Krauthammer
The search for "intelligent life" elsewhere in the universe is the hope that substitutes for God in the mind of the unbeliever. And to believe that politics is our savior is to indulge the most futile of all delusions. · Dec 30 at 3:50pm
He didn't say that politics is "our savior." He said that it "is sovereign in human affairs." By which he means that it is only through politics that we settle our differences about how to govern our society. And he acknowledges that politics is "grubby, grasping, corrupt [and] contemptible." I find it hard to disagree with what he said. And are you saying that only unbelievers think there might be intelligent life elsewhere in the universe?
This is a weak argument. Population need not expand indefinitely. Look at the birth rates in Japan and western Europe today -- they are below replacement level. Indeed, on this planet anyway, there seems to be an inverse correlation between material advancement and the birth rate.
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
Istanbul flea market, five liras. · Dec 6 at 6:22am
Reminds me of the time, about 40 years ago, that my aunt complimented my grandmother on a scarf she was wearing. "You like it? A buck!" she replied. I wasn't quite sure whether she was telling what she paid for it, or offering to sell it.
Perhaps a good analogy is to think of the way most sports broadcasts are handled, with a play-by-play announcer and a color commentator. Traditional journalists are for the most part the play-by-play announcers (though of course many conservatives believe they insert too much color commentary), while sites like HotAir are the color commentators. Nobody would accuse Chris Collinsworth of being a parasite on what Al Michaels does. Both play a useful role in the broadcast, and it would be less enjoyable to watch if only one of their roles was being performed.
I completely agree with that.
And Linda Greenhouse will criticize conservatives no matter what we do, so we certainly shouldn't let that stand in our way.
I guess that I just view these as two separate, though related issues. That is, I don't see them as flip sides of the same coin. Judicial restraint is an issue of, as Nyadnar17 put it, "stability of law," or as you put it in quoting the Supreme Court, a desire to avoid a "jurisprudence of doubt." I don't see it as a usurpation of the legislative process. Judicial activism, on the other hand, is just that -- judges "legislating from the bench," and turning issues that are properly decided by the legislature into questions of Constitutional rights, where the Constitution is in fact silent on the issue. Now, there are times when, in exercising judicial restraint by refusing to overturn a precedent, the Court leaves in place a decision that constituted judicial activism in the first place (like refusing to overturn Roe in Planned Parenthood v Casey), but I still see them as separate issues.
I think you have been taking lessons from our esteemed President in creating straw men. I think this statement is actually the liberal caricature of what conservatives believe about judicial activism and judicial restraint. In my experience, conservatives have pretty much all been saying for years that judicial activism means just what you said: "imposing your own policy preferences on the democratic process." It has nothing to do with simply striking down laws.
Franco: "I spent the last two years cutting taxes for ordinary Americans" - Barack Obama 6/29/2011
- that part was hilarious · Jun 29 at 10:34am
On the down side, I haven't had any of my taxes cut. But on the upside, that must mean that I'm extraordinary!
While I in no way defend what Weiner did, I don't see anything wrong with the fact that he would be treated differently if he were a priest. Weiner's behavior was reprehensible, but it was not illegal (from what we know so far, anyway), and there is nothing in the job description of "Congressman" that specifies that you will not engage in stupid sexual behavior. The job description of "priest," on the other hand, is pretty clear on that point.
That's only true if you have one, and only one, Irish ancestor anywhere in your ancestry. If you go back 8 generations, you have 256 ancestors. If 13 of them were Irish, that would make you 5.1% Irish.
OK, well, here are couple of guys doing the same thing at two different games in recent years....barehanded.
I haven't watched any of the network news shows in decades, and looking at that "desk" Cronkite was sitting at (there's a good shot of it behind the closing credits after he finishes) made me laugh. Was he supposed to be piloting some sort of spaceship?
Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:
Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place. Join today!
Already a Member? Sign In