April 3, 2016
A left-leaning friend of mine explains in a recent Facebook post that he’s not pro-choice, he’s pro-abortion.
If he were talking about anything else, he would sound like a great Lockean libertarian:
September 29, 2013
At National Review Online, Kevin Williamson explains that with health care as with other goods, it’s natural for the rich to be able to afford the best, cutting-edge technologies. In a prosperous free market economy, those new technologies often come down in price and become commonplace over time, but they would never have existed if there weren’t very wealthy people to make it worth it to develop them in the first place.
February 5, 2013
Via Mark Steyn, Gateway Pundit, Wintery Knight, and the Daily Caller, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that the man who shot three white women in midtown Atlanta in 2011 (killing one and permanently paralyzing another) says he was just responding to what he had learned in college:
During his testimony Wednesday, Thandiwe suggested that his reason for even purchasing the gun he used in the shootings was to enforce beliefs he’d developed about white people during his later years as an anthropology major at the University of West Georgia.
September 14, 2012
In the course of reflecting on President Obama’s speech at the convention last week, Yuval Levin reflects on the modern American left more generally:
. . . he persisted in the dominant trope of this convention—and, it seems, of contemporary progressive thought: the jump from the sheer fact of human interdependence to a defense of every federal program in precisely its current form. It’s the liberal welfare state or the law of the jungle, and no other alternative is imaginable. This mental gesture—which simultaneously offers an excuse for ignoring the imminent collapse of the liberal welfare state and for ignoring what conservatives are actually saying and offering—really deserves to be thought through. It is a fascinating indicator of the contemporary Left’s intellectual exhaustion.
Jonah Goldberg has an interesting piece at National Review Online today: “The Myth of the Good Conservative” (“For liberals, he always existed yesterday”). The thesis is as the subtitle implies: that certain liberals are always praising particular conservatives of the past and/or hypothetical conservatives in general, to whom particular conservatives and conservative policy proposals of today supposedly compare unfavorably.
If you’re going to disagree with someone, I think it may be pretty important that you understand his point of view. That doesn’t mean you have to agree with him, by any means—on the contrary, in a way, it’s only after you understand his position that you can truly disagree with it.
Conservatives may not like liberals, but they seem to understand them. In contrast, many liberals find conservative voters not just wrong but also bewildering.
May 1, 2012
Is it becoming mainstream not to take the United Nations seriously? Even the liberal Washington Post, in a recent editorial, offers a scathingly candid assessment:
SO FAR, a U.N. monitoring mission in Syria has had one tangible effect: It has gotten people killed. On Sunday and Monday, monitors toured neighborhoods in the city of Homs and in the Damascus suburbs of Doura and Zabadani. When they left, the areas they visited were shelled, and security forces carried out sweeps in which civilians suspected of speaking to the monitors were taken from their homes and shot or had their houses burned down.