You have to see this story to believe it.
Eh, nevermind….I’ll give you a peek at the photo.
This is a story of Biden coming to CU to discuss campus sexual assault.
“Guys, look in the mirror and ask yourself, ‘Are you being the man you think you are?'” Biden said near the end of an hour-long speech on the Boulder campus Friday afternoon.
“I know it takes courage,” he added. “You’re worried about being socially ostracized by your fraternity brothers or the team or whatever. We have to change the dynamic and socially ostracize the abusers.”
Dude, get a mirror.
In the midst of other ones…
A few months ago, a young American woman named Kate Eberstadt got it into her head that she should organize a choir in a refugee camp.
The day all of what we deserved was taken on by Jesus. ht to this quote Maggie’s Farm.
Had we stood in that crowd that day, it is a forgone conclusion that we would have been part of the sneering mob, ushering him to eternal doom.
He who knew no sin, took ours on to Him, and became the sacrifice for us that each of us deserved.
Good Friday may be a day of celebration for you. But not for me. It is a day of conviction, meditation, remembrance, and sorrow.
Sorrow that a God who never had to, sent His only son, to suffer everything I have always deserved.
The realization of this is the beginning of gratitude. But on Good Friday there was nothing to be grateful of for sure. Only some vague promise that He might return.
On Good Friday, the only hope we had dared to believe in was dead. Evil had won, mockers had succeeded, traitors were enriched, and the enemy of everything good declared victory.
On Good Friday even God the Father turned his back.
It was the smell, not just of death, but of abandonment, hopelessness, emptiness, and defeat. It was all encompassing, it was suffocating.
On THAT Friday there was nothing good… …nothing good for anyone.
On Good Friday hell rained down everything it could on Him, and fortunate for us, He was strong enough to take it!
Stronger than us He was… that’s for sure!
Now we learn the FBI, far from exhausting all other practical options, had been pursuing such non-Apple leads all along…..Instead, Justice rushed to legal war with dubious theories. As it escalated its rhetoric, it even threatened to confiscate Apple’s source code and electronic signature: “The government did not seek to compel Apple to turn those over because it believed such a request would be less palatable to Apple. If Apple would prefer that course, however, that may provide an alternative that requires less labor by Apple programmers.”……Justice also fibbed by saying the Apple case is about one phone. The FBI and state and local prosecutors are pursuing dozens of similar suits—and the circumstantial evidence continues to pile up that targeting Apple was less about counterterrorism than a hand-picked case meant to set a legal precedent for the encryption “back door” that the FBI wants.
Perhaps now is the time for Congress to act if it wants requirements about encryption.
Hmmmmmm. Glenn Reynolds has a good column today…..
Brooks is, of course, horrified at Trump and his supporters, whom he finds childish, thuggish and contemptuous of the things that David Brooks likes about today’s America. It’s clear that he’d like a social/political revolution that was more refined, better-mannered, more focused on the Constitution and, well, more bourgeois as opposed to in-your-face and working class.
The thing is, we had that movement. It was the Tea Party movement…….Yet the tea party movement was smeared as racist, denounced as fascist, harassed with impunity by the IRS and generally treated with contempt by the political establishment — and by pundits like Brooks, who declared “I’m not a fan of this movement.”
BUT I would hesitate to mix Tea Partiers with Trumpists. They are separate.
The part in bold regarding David Brooks’ pronouncement that he doesn’t have a clue.
Note that even David Brooks’ pronouncement that he needs to “socially mingle” with his lessers is just a regurgitation of another old idea he had — that the someone should set up programs to let The Elite go on camping trips with those of the lower orders, to facilitate such “social mingling.”
Or, as I like to say: David Brooks demands that a government program be set up which can introduce him to his doorman.
Via the WSJ from Peggy Noonan.
regarding Sanders’ support.
In the young his support is understandable: They have never been taught anything good about capitalism and in their lifetimes have seen it do nothing—nothing—to protect its own reputation.
This is so true!! I am friends with a few 5th graders who have had an earful from their cranky ol’ Aunt Terri about capitalism due to their regurgitation of teacher thoughts on the subject of capitalism.
Kevin Williamson hits it out the park again. I’m going to have to memorize this one for locavore preening conversions.
I am actually pro Gay Marriage. I am all for more commitment vs less. More steady relationships vs fewer. I am for easier rules for businesses to live with….(how come that same sex couple get to have health insurance, by my long term live in boyfriend/girlfriend does not?), etc, etc.
But it keeps coming back to the issue of redefining what marriage is. I’ve always thought it was a commitment between 2 people backed up by the government for the purposes of keeping it together and splitting it fairly if need be. All for the sake of the children.
So, once again, since old people can marry and gay people can have children, why structure it to a man and a woman?
CC Pecknold of the National Review argues against this redefinition and convinces me further that I’m right.
One crucial argument, however, has been curiously absent. It takes a step back from the question of sexuality and the right to certain benefits under law. One reason why marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution is that the Founders recognized that the institution of marriage was a common good of the society and prior to politics. Put differently: Constitutional silence on marriage indicates a commitment to limited government that has so far eluded our debates about marriage in this country.
Augustine was probably the first great theorist of “society” as something that is “pre-political” and that finds its most basic unit in the family. But as Thomas Aquinas notes, Aristotle also recognized this. The Philosopher says in the Nichomachean Ethics that man is more inclined to conjugal union than political union. Human beings are “social animals” before they are “political animals.” This provides the West with an anthropology for understanding that future citizens come into the world through the union of a man and a woman and that therefore the state has a stake in recognizing and protecting the institution of marriage. The family belongs to our social nature, and it is how a civil society continues to flourish and self-govern. The political union is subsequent to this prior reality. A properly ordered state will recognize and protect conjugal marriage precisely to the extent that it believes in pre-political limits to the exercise of its power.
Assuming all is true, then it’s also true for same sex couples. They too are before politics. They too are creating a family. They too have a stake in their family. They too are social animals. Sure people come into the world with sperm/egg but adoption is common as is surrogacy. The family is powerful and it deserves the protection of govt.