PLEASE help here. It is tragic that social conservatives have been so stupid and alienated otherwise reasonable women. Help them. Help us. Please. · 0 minutes ago
Edited 0 minutes ago
I wish I could agree with you, but you are much more complimentary of my sex than I think is warranted. These "otherwise reasonable women" have bought into and participated unquestioningly in disgusting pandering. I think lack of reason is exactly one of their biggest problems.
Agree, and I especially do not want us to fall into the trap of trying to cater more to women even than the other party. However I do see the need to respond in some way to the successful Democratic message that the GOP is anti-female.
However because the defensive position is inherently weak and unattractive, and because it is difficult and risky to make the complete argument in the public square, I agree with Probable Cause that the best defense here is a good offense. Probable Cause suggests a particular defense of the Second Amendment. This is especially useful because lots of Democrats own guns. In addition Democrats ought to be hammered on school vouchers, on the fact that the unemployment rate has dropped almost solely because so many people have dropped out of the job market, on the high jobless rate among the young, and especially among minorities, etc., etc.
But if I had my wish I'd drag Kermit Gosnell and his friends at tax-supported Planned Parenthood into the public square. Let women see how Democrats care about women.
Do these single women want to get married? I've given up on knowing the answer to that, but assuming many of them do, how about promoting policies that help that endangered species, the American boy, so that there is a greater chance he will grow up to be a good American man and husband? Publicly praising fatherhood might help. Also suspending rowdy kids on a school bus, not the policemen trying to do their jobs.
Hallelujah! Thanks for the Kate quotes, and, clearly, Kate IS brilliant!
Great scene you chose, though it's almost impossible to pick the best scene in this movie. Does the movie have any weaknesses? I cannot find one. Even the minor characters--the guys who are scammed out of money, the waitress--are wonderful.
I have to put in a word for the boxcar scene and the conversation about chickens, though, and also for Joe Pantoliano, who plays Eddie Moscone.
Have been thinking about this child and her family. Thanks for the reminder and the update.
Perhaps the Pope was only trying to deal with sufferings of many Christians in Muslim countries--I hope that is the case--but he also appears to play into what one could argue is the dangerous notion that Islam is fundamentally a religion of peace, about which there is a lot of contrary evidence, both in word and deed. Not facing facts in this matter has been a big problem for the West, and while I do not expect the Pope to attack Islam, I wish he had refrained from his formulation in this quotation.
Might Islam become a religion of peace? Let us pray.
Fred Cole: Should we be the world's policeman?
Policemen are generally charged with three broad duties: Apprehension of criminals, detection of crimes and maintaining public order. Detection of crimes doesn't really apply, in terms of international relations — there's no convenient analogue to Detective Lennie Briscoe or Constable Odo. So that leaves us with apprehending criminals and maintaining public order.
"Detection" is parallel to "intelligence," of which we seem to have less and less, especially on-the-ground human intelligence. Would you reduce our intelligence budget, too?
Still, I'd argue that the "world's policeman" analogy is flawed, because we have never tried and should not try to put all the bad guys in jail. We ought to deal with what is in our national interest, and especially those matters where we have a chance of success. Making sure our chances of success are very high and that our enemies know this is a major reason for maintaining a large defense budget.
There is another reason that this is a good thing: it's so outrageous that, without offending them, you can send the article to your liberal musician friends and pray that the truth will, crumb by crumb, dawn on them. I sent this to four of them, and knowing the musicians' network, the article will be sent on.
Having lived both pre-and post-pill, I vote for pre-pill. There were other contraceptive methods before the pill (and they work) and there are even better non-pill methods now. The "enlightened women" I happen to know seem to choose natural family planning. As for the world, I don't see evidence of improvement. I was going to add "most especially for women," but then I thought of the state of children and of men and all are suffering. Nope, the world before the advent of the pill was a better place.
More prayers (and I know from hard experience how much those prayers matter).
Question for the ladies. Is the primary reason to not have sex with someone the fear of pregnancy? · 10 hours ago
Not pregnancy. It is because the man is not appealing enough and that is to each woman's personal judgement. · 6 minutes ago
For an historical perspective from someone who was a young woman when the pill first appeared, if we are talking about sex outside of marriage, it certainly was a primary reason. A second strong reason was the odd notion that sex before marriage was not a good idea. No doubt today you are correct, Indaba.
As an aside, I have read that the early feminists refused to join with Margaret Sanger because they believed that contraception would remove or dilute a woman's power, which consisted in the ability to say "no," a power that was, in their view, tied to the risk of pregnancy.
How well does the mutilation line work when you make it to those that disagree with you? What is the percentage of eye rolls you get?
If you are going to overstate the dangers of medication, and use absurd language to describe common procedures, then most people are going to ignore you. You can do that while among people who wholly agree with you (Catholic land), but otherwise you convince most people that you are simply hysterically opposed for no good reason. · 4 hours ago
"Mutilation" may not be good rhetoric, but it's a fact that surgery mutilates, and yes, I understand that often it is done for a good purpose, but it's good to face facts, too. It's also a fact that while the pill may be necessary for some women's health and it is preferable that people be permitted to choose what they put into their bodies, as Simon argues, it has also done damage. I think the evidence is that on the whole, it is not good for women, a subject on which Mama Toad has been eloquent.
However, our alliance with Israel is not important because of domestic Jewish interests, no matter what the anti-Israel-lobby folks would like one to believe.
As for American Jewry, like other liberal groups, they are not necessarily clear-sighted about their own interests.
And my question remains, why should Americans generally care about Israel's security if Jewish Americans do not? Sure, it's a democracy . . . we give it Billion$ every year . . . fine, but why die for it? · 5 hours ago
Why are the two things--Jewish indifference to or even antagonism toward Israel and American support for Israel-- related? Either supporting Israel is in our interest or it is not. What Jewish-Americans think about that is interesting but irrelevant. I happen to think it is in our interest. Why is a fairly long subject. Here, from Caroline Glick, is one statement of those interests.
As for the fever dreams of Iranian mullahs... it is simply not our place to intervene in that. We are not God and we cannot be the policeman of the world.
The Constitution (to say nothing of natural law) allows us to defend ourselves, and the mullahs are our sworn enemy, the biggest supporter of terrorist activities against the United States (and others). They declared war when they seized our embassy. They were responsible for many American deaths in Iraq and have become active against us around the world, including South America, which feels to me like our doorstep. These are not "fever dreams," they are actions, and this is not about domestic intervention. Not that all this tells us what exactly we should do about it, but surrender ought not to have been on the table.
Born in Iran and more than sympathetic to the far, far Left.
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