Tuesday, November 10, 2009
The traditional marriage debate is not rational
...it makes no sense to provide the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, a very simple and pragmatic reason: Society will gain no benefit from doing so. Heterosexual marriage generates families which constitute the fundamental unit of the social order. This is a great benefit to society as a whole. Indeed, it is the sine qua non of society, and it is a benefit provided at considerable sacrifice on the part of the married couple. In return for this benefit, all societies foster, encourage and protect marriage in various ways, including laws which make it financially easier for married couples to maintain their families. This arrangement is based on a quid pro quo which cannot be duplicated by same-sex couples.By de-criminalizing contraception, society proceeded down a slippery slope which leads to the call for "marriage equality." Heterosexual marriages can remain as sterile as homosexual marriages. If you think children are "a great benefit to society as a whole", look at their treatment in the tax code which is how "society" can put its money where its mouth is. No, I don't think we can turn back the clock to pre-Griswald, but we can't pretend this is a rational debate either.
posted by Patrick Sweeney at 11:44 PM Permalink
The Bishops support HR 3962 with Stupak-Pitts
Divide and conquer. The bill lacks:
While the bishops are not libertarians but statists, but this bill has no recognition of subsidiarity.
The pro-abortion people are not sweating, they are certain Stupak will be killed in "reconciliation" process.
posted by Patrick Sweeney at 11:03 PM Permalink
The Coming victory of the socialists
Rush writes "It is to create so much transference of wealth. It is to create so much dependence on the middle class on government that Democrats will never lose power. That's the objective here, to make so many of you dependent on your very existence for government subsidies, handouts, and checks that you think only the Democrat Party will provide those for you; that everybody knows, "The Republicans, if they ever get in power, are going to cut that back." So this is the long-term goal."What I can add here is that this an entanglement, a confusion, an economic fog around checks I'm writing (or not, thanks to the withholding), and the checks I'm getting in transfer payments or services.
What I fear is that there will never be credible political movement to take an axe and strike at the root. The last chance for that vanished with the failure of will on the part of Hastert, Frist, and Bush to provide an "exit strategy" for those under 40 from Social Security and Medicare. No, we're stuck with that.
We will wake up in a world, where not only the employees of the federal government will look to Washington with anxious anticipation of what impact nameless faceless bureaucrats will have, but every citizen on the grid as well. Over time, we'll feel like we're federal government employees.
posted by Patrick Sweeney at 10:29 PM Permalink
Sunday, November 08, 2009
Odd Things about the Fort Hood Shooting (2) This is just a personal observation as I've not been methodical about writing down the sources, but it seems to me that the response to demonstrate this was a not a terrorist act, and indeed not even a criminal act, comes a little too fast and too well-packaged to be completely a spontaneous reaction to the events of Thursday.
There's a therapeutic interpretation (stress drove Major Hasan to insanity). This one is popular with the liberals and undoubtedly with the lawyers who will be handling the still-living Major Hasan. Members of Hasan's family rushed to any reporters to paint the suspect as a model officer and model citizen, incapable of anger or rage, and moderate in all his views.
There's the jihadi interpretation -- this was a ''shahid'' or martyrdom attack. This brings a sort of fame and glory, which I presume is automatic if one shouts Allahu Akbar ("God is Great") as one kills others in the name of Islam. This would be popular with radical Islamists and those in sympathy with them.
posted by Patrick Sweeney at 7:11 PM Permalink
Odd things about the Fort Hood shooting (1)
I was waiting for, and millions of people were waiting for something that would be consoling and reassuring to the American people on Thursday afternoon from the President. It was bizarre. He seems to make some effort in his remarks to dwell on the mundane bureaucratic meeting which has just concluded and I'm wondering, doesn't he realize the gravity of what has just happened? When he remarks come he focuses on what we don't know and then cautions us not to jump to conclusions with little resolve to determine its cause and punish those responsible.
This reporter expresses what I felt:
posted by Patrick Sweeney at 6:53 PM Permalink
Did the FBI immediately deny the Fort Hood Shooting was terrorist?
The only official comment I was able to find was that the question of it being a terrorist attack or motivated by terrorism is not yet known. Mark Steyn remarked that if one applies the FBI's narrow definition of terrorism, it only applies to those carrying a Al Queda membership card.
posted by Patrick Sweeney at 3:07 PM Permalink