In contrast to the feckless, inane, dismissive stupidity from E. J. Dionne I referenced yesterday, Peter Beinart is exactly spot-on. And this is why the Tea Party has a chance to not be co-opted by the Republicans. (Full disclosure: I am of the opinion that Peter Beinart, while often wrong, says something interesting or useful 86.9% of the time.) Anyway, the issue of foreign intervention is not going anywhere, and any serious discussion of national financial solvency must by necessity include the possibility of major cuts in defense spending. However, before the Republicans tie me up and burn me at the stake Latimer-style, (ahem) I would point out that entitlements (Medicare, Social Security) have an even bigger share, depending on how you look at it. If the Democrats were any better than the spineless invertebrates on the ocean floor, (that is, consistent with the application of their ideological outlook and flow of policies) they'd man up and impose a means-test for both, but especially for Social Security. If they really believe in it as a means of social protection, they'd tell us all that these programs are essential parts of the plan to prevent income inequality from producing social inequality. [You sound like Mickey Kaus.--ed.] We can only hope. I digress. Don't be afraid to use the coercive power of government in this way if you really feel it's "the right thing to do." Which usually outs most people as inconsistent hypocrites, since the elected officials are afraid of the right-wing mob, who, while decrying "tax and spend" policies, does not favor the cutting of [bribes] programs they actually use. On the other hand, most progressive types might seem, despite protestations, to care more about the appearance of solving a problem than actually solving it. (Which is one of the points of Sowell's "The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation As a Basis For Social Policy".) That title itself could explain American conservatism's visceral hostility to its opposite. [Semi-Germane Side-Rant: I think Mickey made Slate suck less, and now that he's at Newsweek, Newsweek sucks less, too. Though for my part, I never understood some of the right-leaning celebration at the impending demise of Newsweek; though its left tilt was observable and sometimes irritating, every time I have read a Newsweek, it has ranged from, "That was pleasantly diverting as I wait at the dentist's office" to, "That was an amazing piece that has enriched my intellectual life." I have never been angered by what I viewed as an unfair presentation of an issue. But that's just me.]
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...
Comments