Re: Brilliance is Overrated

Though George Washington was a Freemason, and preformed ceremonies in his robes, our President is not high priest of the country. We do not look to the President to instruct us on morality. It is ironic that conservatives who believe that the government has no role to play in providing remedies for slavery and Jim Crow, who believe that the government has no role in lifting people out of poverty believes that government has an expansive role in defining a common morality.

What right did Bush have to impose his fetishism of embryos upon the nation. It is important to note that he took no action to outlaw stem cell research, a fact often mentioned, by his supporters. So he was not making the argument that the research was illegal. He was making the argument that federal money should be spent according to his, minority, religious belief.

The very idea that the resources of the nation should be captive to the bizarre taboos of its leader of the moment is the very opposite of the American ideal, where each citizen follows their own conscience in matters of faith. Obama's speech was manifestly more serious because it did not presume a national moral consensus where none exist, and none is warranted.

From California to the Boy Scouts, It Destroys More Than It Builds

The weakest part of this arguement is that it describes California's decline and attributes this decline to liberal ideas.   The problem is of course that compares California in the 1970's with the turn of the 21 st century.  The problem is that during the 1970's California was reaping the benifits of liberal polices such as tuition free Universities, and well funded primary and secondary schools.  The present environment has been the result of years of Republican control of the state government and proposition 13.  Californai Universities are now very expensive and the schools are some of the worst in the nation.   Actually his argument is powerful argument for the progressive programs that caused the technology boom.

He also mentions restrictions on use of public property by the Boy Scouts because they have refused to allow entry to gay or athiests children.  The Boy Scouts have made a decision.  They should be glad to live with the consequences.  The worst thing we could teach children is that there is no consequences for taking a moral stand.  Reguardless of where you stand on the issue itself, it is critical that children realize when you take a stand there are consequences.

Re: From Africa With Love

There is certainly less to dislike in this article than is most from Prager. Indeed he should be commended for identifying with Obama as a legitimate President. It may be a low threshold, but an important one. Prager, though he often refuses to recognize the legitimacy of liberalism restrains himself from extending this to the entirity of the Democratic party or its president. There are some uncomfortable statements here and there, and I may not be the right sort of dog to catch which of these might be a dog wistle for much darker sentiments. But read on its face, I have only one Question and it is more playful than political.

What is the deal with Republican's sixties memory hole. The 1960's may not have been their favorite decade, but things actually did transpire during those ten years. Aside from the Cuban Missle Crisis, there was great celbration in Ireland at the election of John F. Kennedy. He even visited the home of his ancestors. I realise that his orthodox parents left him television deprived, but at the age of 12, the age he would have been then, I was regularly reading the newspaper front to back. I find it odd that there was not at least mention of Irelands love of Kennedy.

RE: California college student: Terror is the New Communism

Best argument against this article;

Mr. Prager recounts that he talked to a college student who told him that 9-11 was caused by the government. He then made the claim that her thoughts specifically that Terrorism was the new Communism must have come from her University.

While you can find one crackpot in a university who will say almost anything, few Professors indeed teach that 9-11 was caused by the government. These conspiracy theorist are way out of even the most liberal mainstream.

To base an argument on what is being taught in Universities on the rantings of a 9-11 conspiracy theorist is profoundly dishonest and attacks Prager's Achilles' heal, his moral hypocrisy.

Another Thought:

What does Prager's wife think about him chatting up, very probably mentally unstable coeds?