27 February 2012
The world is right to have concern over the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran—It would be nice if we had enough concern over this threat to take serious action against it, as opposed to the tired approach of using economic sanctions, which have never worked versus anyone and won't work now—but there is a geostrategic question that we perhaps ought to ask in regard to another Near Eastern state whose name begins with "I": If, as is thought true, Israel possesses nuclear weapons, how much longer will it be before this country is forced to use them vs. its increasingly antagonistic neighbors, who have so great an advantage in both manpower and "conventional" ordnance?
26 February 2012
It's better for heretics and blasphemers to be saved from their errors than to die outside God's grace, but it's better for them to die outside God's grace than to continue leading other souls into perdition.
17 February 2012
"Get-out-the-vote" campaigns are counterproductive. If someone is so indifferent about the future of the country that he wouldn't bother even to cast his ballot (or even to register to potentially do so) without this kind of push, then we'll be better off if he stays home on Election Day.
14 February 2012
Bennett also said:
“I’d like to have every gentleman and lady in this room commit themselves [sic] to get our government to legalize drugs….So they [sic] have to get it from a doctor, not just some gangsters that just sell it under the table."Note the phrase "have to" in this quote. Were illegal drugs to be legalized, dependents on such wouldn't "have to" get them from physicians; they could still get the previously banned substances from disreputable sources, and indeed would have to do so, since nobody who wants to keep his license to practice medicine is going to prescribe something like heroin or cocaine—which would be no less dangerous and habit-forming if obtained licitly rather than from criminals—not for a valid purpose but rather to perpetuate an addiction. From now on, "Bennett" ought to be pronounced "bonehead."
13 February 2012
At a pre-Grammys party, singer Tony Bennett capitalized the death of fellow singer Whitney Houston to state "Let's legalize drugs like [sic] they did in Amsterdam." Bennett, who has had his own problems with addiction, must have relapsed if he considers the approach taken by the Netherlands—for I assume that he means that country's official capital, not its namesake in New York—to be a model of how to handle the problem of drug abuse; thanks to the "progressive" policy of the Dutch, whose country is even worse governed than ours, thoroughfares of their Amsterdam are lined with addicts who waste away their lives on substances that destroy the mind and the body. Anyway, what have "street drugs" to do with Houston's demise, which police preliminarily attribute to a mixing of alcohol with prescribed pills?
12 February 2012
I'll bet that I know the first words that Coach Belichek said to his New England Idiots after they lost the Hyperbowle [see the list of domanisms]: "Which one of you forgot to turn on the video camera in the Giants' locker room?"
10 February 2012
Now that nearly everyone except who matters most (viz., the ruling Obama Democrats) has become aware of the peril of g.n.p.-exceeding debts, one might expect the Pentagon brass to realize that our chief consideration in the development and procurement of arms should be not which weapons deliver the biggest bang for the biggest bucks, but which ones will have the most effectiveness for their cost. The US intervention in Vietnam has already showed that superior technology can be thwarted by resourcefulness, and unless weapons of mass destruction (which are not necessarily the most expensive ones on the battlefield) should be used in the next war between major military powers, whoever loses that conflict will be not the side that has inferior weaponry but the one that runs out of money first. Considering that we've dug ourselves into a 15-trillion-dollar hole even without fighting a large-scale war, and that we're making no serious attempt to climb out, that side is likely to be ours.
08 February 2012
Roman Catholic leaders are rightfully vowing to fight the mandate by Emperor Nerobama's Department of Health and Human Services that employers provide birth control, that is, abortifacients, contraceptives, and sterilization, to their workers; the government scheme ought to be opposed not only by Roman Catholics, however, nor even just by them and by other Christians, but by everyone who either doesn't want to turn social engineering into an entitlement or doesn't want to pay for what's unnecessary. Preventing childbirth, after all, has almost nothing to do with health; bearing children is perfectly normal for a sexually mature female. (I wouldn't even have advised HHS chief Kathleen Sebelius's mother to use birth control.)
02 February 2012
Uncommon Commentary #241: Since the USA Isn't a True Democracy Anyway, I Suggest that We Call it a "Dumbocracy"
As I see it, the closest thing to a perfect government that can be attained, prior to the prophesied Thousand-Year Reign of Christ and the Saints, would be one in which the titular head of state would be the highest-ranking ecclesiastic in the land; the actual ruler would be appointed by the head of state, and subject to removal from office by him at any time. (The head of state could delegate this authority if he considered himself too busy to make such decisions.) The power of the ruler, whom one might call a prime minister or a chancellor, would thus be checked by the potentiality of his dismissal.
My ideal regime would not be theocracy. (I don't know what it would be called—therefore, since it’s my brainchild, I suggest the name “domanism”—, since, so far as I know, there has never been an example of it; indeed, there probably never will be. It might be realized in some country where people still keep an open mind about politics, but not here in the USA, where it's a secular heresy to suggest that our method of governance is anything but the sole legitimate one, and where, because of the founding of the USA on a political rather than an ethnic basis, radically altering the Constitution would likely be seen as eliminating our "national" raison d'être.) In fact, along with prisoners, minors, and others clearly unfit to hold office, the top ecclesiastic would be the only person who would not be eligible to serve as prime minister or chancellor or whatever. (It would not be what we incorrectly call "democracy" either, but more on that next.)My reason for designating the top church official as the sole elector is that such a person is more reliable than anyone else for choosing a wise leader, and I'm afraid that it now ought to be evident to the well-informed that we the people can no longer be entrusted with such a responsibility. To give just one example of why I think so: Shortly after the catastrophic 2008 US elections, I read the results of a public-opinion survey, according to which respondents considered the Democratic Party to be "center-right." It seems to me that our political system, in which the public select politicians to represent them, is viable only if the voters are astute enough to elect the best candidates for high office; when the populace is so deluded that it views as "center-right" a party which had never been more thoroughly dominated by leftists, how can anyone believe that what we call "democracy" still works?