The principles that rule this blog

Principles that will govern my thoughts as I express them here (from my opening statement):


  • Freedom of the individual should be as total as possible, limited only by the fact that nobody should be free to cause physical injury to another, or to deprive another person of his freedoms.
  • Government is necessary primarily to provide those services that private enterprise won't, or won't at a price that people can afford.
  • No person has a right to have his own beliefs on religious, moral, political, or other controversial issues imposed on others who do not share those beliefs.

I believe that Abraham Lincoln expressed it very well:

“The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do, at all, or cannot
so well do, for themselves — in their separate, individual capacities.”


Comments will be invited, and I will attempt to reply to any comments that are offered in a serious and non-abusive manner. However, I will not tolerate abusive or profane language (my reasoning is that this is my blog, and so I can control it; I wouldn't interfere with your using such language on your own!)

If anyone finds an opinion that I express to be contrary to my principles, they are welcome to point this out. I hope that I can make a rational case for my comments. Because, in fact, one label I'll happily accept is rationalist.

Monday, July 16, 2012

I've discovered another columnist I like

The Washington Post is a paper whose positions are far to my left. But in fact, they seem to be much more flexible in their choice of political opinion columnists. They have George Will, who makes me seem liberal in comparison. And they have Charles Krauthammer, with whom I am generally in agreement. Recently, I discovered another Post columnist I like. Her name is Kathleen Parker.

She may have been writing columns in the Post for a while, but I never noticed them until the one I remarked upon in my May 15 post entitled “A column worth reading.” And in yesterday's Post, I found out some information most of the media had suppressed:

There is simply no other way to explain what has transpired in the few days since Mitt Romney’s speech to the NAACP. If you read a headline or watched the news, most likely you’re aware that Romney was booed for saying that he would repeal Obamacare. What you may not know is that Romney also left the stage to a standing ovation.

Suppose you were an editor, which headline would you prefer:

“NAACP boos Romney during speech about Obamacare”

“NAACP convention gives Romney a standing O”

Hmm.


I've got to pay more attention to Kathleen Parker. I like her style!

No comments: