In as much as it makes the church look bad, and also casts another question of credibility on Driscoll, he shouldn't have done it.But I guess my question would be this-- is this how the book publishing game is played? Meaning, did he do anything out of the ordinary or is this something that happens with high profile book sales? How is this different than just buying a lot of ads?
I don't know enough about the flat tax to really comment. But the major problem in simplifying the tax code is that both parties have too much to gain from a more complex tax code-- it's easier to manipulate and twist into loop holes for big companies.
But I do like the idea of a simpler, more obvious taxation system. I think if the GOP just made people pay their taxes directly (instead of automatic withholding) people would start to really feel the effects of the government and would probably vote differently.
Great post. But this isn't "ideology for ideology's sake" (not your words, but your point, I gather).
The Left has different goals for the world and they are still imposing their goals. It isn't about not being data driven.
DeBlasio is going after charter schools precisely because they help low income students and they aren't government based. You can't let "these people" get free of the government. And parents cannot have a choice in this matter. Otherwise the remaining public schools are stuck with comparatively worse students as good students go to charter schools.
Economics-- it's worse to see a news story of someone making 7.50 and hour and working for a boss that makes six figures each quarter. The only jobs that are worth having around are jobs that pay a wage that makes liberals feel good about themselves. For the rest there is always welfare.
In chalking it up to "ideology writ large"-- the Left's good intentions-- we miss the chance to expose the actual goals/arguments of the Leftist/Statist program. We have to force liberals to state the premises of their arguments, not just argue their conclusions.
That's really interesting. It's freedom of association. I'd like someone on the left to tell us whether this is icky, Jim Crow style discrimination, or not.
Paul A. Rahe:
If, as now seems to be the case, wedlock is nothing more than a temporary arrangement designed to serve the convenience and pleasure of the parties concerned ... and, as the folks who run the entertainment industry seem to understand, legalized polygamy comes next.
Great post. Really! One thing I wonder about with marriage and children-- does welfare have anything to do with it? Your point about marriage being about children rings true to me, but hasn't the state "picked up the tab" on the children? Or at least, claimed to do so? "You don't need both parents, we [the State] will send you some money." In that sense... a woman has a great incentive to kick a dead-beat father (I hesitate to say "dad") out and a dead-beat father has less of an incentive to try and get his act together. What for? If anything, getting a good job in many cases may mean losing more in benefits than his wage makes up.
In the common use of the word "moral," yes, atheists can be moral. Don't know many philosophers or apologists who argue otherwise. The issue is whether there is a morality in a non theistic/deistic world (materialist/naturalistic) or whether all we have are social conventions. In that sense, I think atheists have a tough time proving that there is morality without God. Even if there were, how would it matter to us ifnwe werw just "time and chance?" Bill Craig and Louise Antony had a good debate on the subject, and Ravi Zacharias is a very good speaker on the subject.The question of an ontological basis for morality, God or no God, is not a referendum on atheists as people.
94% Repbulican (all issues except healthcare and economy and education)
73% Libertarian (healthcare and economy)
5% and 4% Green and Socialist party.
John Roberts is Kira getting the Death Note back: "Just as planned." (Anime reference.) I think that watching Obama's castle fall around him may have been somewhere in the back of his mind. But I think his ruling was wrong. Obamacare shouldn't have been upheld. We are now faced with a "law" that isn't even a law, but a series of aspirations being enforced in pieces, parts, and at the President's whim. And there's still a lot more mischief to come. Additionally, his ruling basically gives, as John Yoo pointed out, a "roadmap" for Congress to do all sorts of things as long as they call it a "tax." I'm not sure Roberts did us any favors. There is a chance that we can get Ocare replaced with something else. But really, if the Republicans don't get the Senate this year, it probably won't happen.
Wow. That's crazy. I never heard of cisgender till I was reading 4Chan. Here's the thing-- if we are beyond "male and female" why not accept that we are beyond "gender?" Why try and compartmentalize people into narrower and narrower and more restrictive categories?
Great post. "Meanwhile, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo declared a state of emergency for several counties, including NYC, and warned people to stay off the roads. So I guess there is a difference between a liberal and a communist." I enjoyed the bolded part. That was great.
The quote from Carmen Farina was crazy. School is about getting a hot lunch, and about them being better parents than the actual parents. There's a whole lot of "wow" in that. Isn't that a weird claim? Are they saying that teachers are the best parents? Or just "the NYC admins?" It's a very bizarre statement. Scary too. Does that mean De Blasio's kids are safer with teachers than at home with De Blasio?
Just getting back from work. Ethics and morality are tricky things. When I say "how does that make Christianity more appealing?" I guess I also mean, how does one represent Christ in this situation? We've enforced standards-- "you messed up, you're out." That's really encouraging!
What do Christians win in this situation? Having sex outside of marriage isn't the only sin, or even the only public sin one can commit. If they have a sports team, I wonder what time of language is used in the locker room? I'm not saying that we should re-write the Bible. I'm asking how to deal with this particular situation. I think of Joseph, when he found out Mary was pregnant. The Bible reports he didn't want to make a public example of her. It doesn't say he had no consequences in mind, but that he didn't want to embarrass her. Couldn't this lady have been shuffled around in the school, if they didn't want her in front of students like that?
It depends on what the book's purpose is. Terry Goodkind's works are full of "fake debates" not in the classical Greek sense, where there were actual debates, but Goodkind's Ayn Randian hero would correct characters "but if you do that, then this would happen." "Oh, I never thought of that," they'd say. Ethical egoism wins the day! At first it was very subtle. But then it became so obvious he was "soapboxing" that I couldn't ignore it. It was improper counter-balancing of ideas. The other characters-- the non Randians-- came off as so dumb they were drug down a bit.
One good example of a proper counter-balancing of ideas is in the anime Psycho-Pass. The character's discussion of the nature of justice, and societal order flows naturally from the context of the story and makes sense. There is no "winner" because you're supposed to be left feeling uncomfortable with both outcomes.
The church school can put their morals clause in their contract. I went to a a few schools that were connected to churches and I think they have a need to protect their "image." That's fine. However, it looks bad to fire her. Where's the Christian compassion? What does the school gain by firing her? Does it really make Christianity look more appealing by doing so?
In keeping with your example, I'd say "opposition to fracking." We have enough food and enough land to feed a lot more people. We are just trying to prop up farm prices. But not only does opposition to fracking keep gas prices from going down, it also raises the price of food by shifting land resources to windmills and corn fields for ethanol. In general, I'd say our big mistake has been not embracing fracking and nuclear energy,
It was an interesting piece. I read it before reading the Shapiro piece you mentioned, and I don't know anything about the Lego movie or what people are saying about it. But it was definitely interesting and sobering to read.
Thank you for the post. I had no idea that this type of "treatment" was out there. I'll remove the quote marks once more research is done. I'm all for that type of research if it really does help people break these addiction, and presuming it doesn't replace it with another equally unhealthy addiction.
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