With 2009 being the bicentennial of the birth of Charles Darwin and the sesquicentennial of the publication of his On the Origin of the Species, the observance of a “Year of Darwin” has been marked primarily by the publication of a vast array of titles dedicated to revering or reviling the man who defined the dominant theory of evolution.
Anno Domini 2009 has shown no sign of any abatement in the so-called “God Debate.” In recent years, several prominent atheists have published their compendiums of anti-religious boilerplate only to find themselves confronted by a rather lively defense of the God whom they were trying to bury.
Do you ever find yourself saying, “It used to be so simple?” Sharing your views was a simple as handing out flyers, attending a meeting, or making a few phone calls. Then you discovered e-mail and the Internet, and before long, you were deluging your friends and acquaintances with forwarded posts and links to websites.
Since the publication of The Hobbit in 1937, and The Lord of the Rings in 1954–1955, J.R.R. Tolkien’s fiction has captivated generations of readers. The numerous printings and editions of his works have been met by seemingly innumerable imitators and commentators, and they spawned one of the most financially successful adaptations to film in history.
The Dumbest Generation is a book that is painful to read, but which Americans dare not ignore. The book’s title reflects the confrontational character of its findings: Mark Bauerlein addresses a topic that refuses to be ignored, and he does so with a command of the facts and the passion of a jeremiad.
Success or failure for a political lobbyist often comes down to access; without easy access to legislators, it is naturally much harder to apply the pressure to drive legislation in the desired direction. But lobbyists in Austin, Texas, may soon begin applying a variation on Chairman Mao’s saying, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun” — albeit not in the way the Marxist dictator had in mind.
A recent New York Times op-ed is proving to be simply the latest in a long string of such pieces proving that the editors at the supposed “paper of record” simply do not “get it.” Opining under the headline “Preserving Reasonable Gun Limits,” the editors of the New York Times demonstrate a breathtaking disregard or misunderstanding for the nature of constitutionally guaranteed liberties in the United States.
According to its website, the Department of Homeland Security “has a vital mission: to secure the nation from the many threats we face. ... Our duties are wide-ranging, but our goal is clear – keeping America safe.” Unfortunately, while ostensibly busy with the performance of those wide-ranging duties, DHS employees have managed to lose track of nearly 300 firearms — and some of those weapons have fallen into the hands of known criminals.
When he was running for President, Barack Hussein Obama claimed that a decision to elect his opponent would mean, in essence, a “third term” for George Bush. The purported purpose for voting for the candidate of “Hope and Change” was to mark a break with the past eight years, right?
Are objects evil, or is it the purpose for which a person uses it which is evil? This is a fundamental question that underlies many public policy debates in our country, but rarely does it so near the surface as it is in the debate over gun control.