It certainly shouldn’t be. Making religious beliefs a litmus test will splinter the movement. It’s about individualism and limited government.
[Update a few minutes later]
Vaguely related — what leftism does to people. It’s a religion, and a pretty nasty one.
More thoughts on Kenneth Anderson’s post, from Megan McArdle.
I hate web pages that don’t let you back out of them. It’s an interesting story about using math to track gang activity, but follow the link at your peril.
[Update for those interested]
I’m using Firefox 6.0.2 in Linux.
Just eat it.
I agree. I have sort of a sweet tooth, so that’s one of the things I’ve given up on this paleolithic diet, but I figure if I’m going to break the diet, I might as well do it whole hog and get it out of my system. As the dentist in the article says, it’s better for the teeth to eat all the candy at once than to have a steady diet of it for weeks. The same goes to the glycemic effects, I think. If I overdo it on salt or sugar in a single meal, I can get back to the routine within a day or two. Also, I bought dark chocolate Hershey’s kisses, which the kids might not like as much, but will be heart healthy for me if I have leftovers.
[Update, a while later]
It is dusk, and the streets are empty.
This just validates my long-standing thesis that Halloween has been taken over from the kids, who used to go trick-or-treating, and used to be free range, to the adult baby boomers, who don’t want to grow up.
Is he lying?
Any time someone asks if David Axelrod is lying, I know the safe way to bet.
[Update a while later, after being away from computer]
Link fixed now, sorry.
The upper tier is still doing pretty well. But the lower tier of the New Class — the machine by which universities trained young people to become minor regulators and then delivered them into white collar positions on the basis of credentials in history, political science, literature, ethnic and women’s studies — with or without the benefit of law school — has broken down. The supply is uninterrupted, but the demand has dried up. The agony of the students getting dumped at the far end of the supply chain is in large part the OWS. As Above the Law points out, here is “John,” who got out of undergrad, spent a year unemployed and living at home, and is now apparently at University of Vermont law school, with its top ranked environmental law program — John wants to work at a “nonprofit.”
This isn’t going to end well.
His campaign called his refusal principled: “Citizens of states should be able to make decisions . . . on their own.” Got it? People cannot make “their own” decisions if Romney expresses an opinion. His flinch from leadership looks ludicrous after his endorsement three months ago of a right-to-work bill that the New Hampshire legislature was considering. So, the rule in New England expires across the Appalachian Mountains?
A day after refusing to oppose repeal of Kasich’s measure, Romney waffled about his straddle, saying he opposed repeal “110 percent.” He did not, however, endorse the anti-mandate measure, remaining semi-faithful to the trans-Appalachian codicil pertaining to principles, thereby seeming to lack the courage of his absence of convictions.
Romney, supposedly the Republican most electable next November, is a recidivist reviser of his principles who is not only becoming less electable; he might damage GOP chances of capturing the Senate. Republican successes down the ticket will depend on the energies of the Tea Party and other conservatives, who will be deflated by a nominee whose blurry profile in caution communicates only calculated trimming.
Sigh…
I think that the Republicans best hope (in terms of getting a good candidate) is for a brokered convention, in which none of the current pack win. It would allow one of those unwilling to run a brutal campaign to reconsider the possibility of a shorter one. But that’s probably not very realistic.
The administration never even tried.
[Update a few minutes later]
Though I’ve noted it in the past, this is worth commenting on again:
He also undercut his own negotiating team by regularly bragging—in political speeches delivered while talks were ongoing—of his plans to “end” the “war in Iraq.” Even more damaging was his August decision to commit only 3,000 to 5,000 troops to a possible mission in Iraq post-2011. This was far below the number judged necessary by our military commanders. They had asked for nearly 20,000 personnel to carry out counterterrorist operations, support American diplomats, and provide training and support to the Iraqi security forces. That figure was whittled down by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to 10,000, which they judged to be the absolute minimum needed.
My emphasis. This is the standard rhetoric of the Democrats, and was very common throughout the war and particularly in the 2006 and 2008 campaigns. Their only solution to wars is to “end” them — we are never allowed to actually win one by the left, or even consider the possibility, and haven’t been since World War II.