"I'm thinking we should not allow anyone to serve in Government unless they have a degree from law or medical school, a Ph.D., or have been a four-star general. I'm fine letting idiots have a say in things, but I'm not fine in letting idiots define what things they have a say in.... You can't silence all weirdos, and dissenting opinions are good. But they don't make a Ph.D. in business, so that helps a lot, and that utterly annihilates the Tea Party....I mean, my real solution would be to say, 'Separation of church and state, therefore only atheists can be in government,' but I think that is going to take a while to realize."
I don't like his (stated) Final Solution, though the Constitution prevents it from being put in place. Atheism is every bit as much a religion as any of the more formal ones, and a dictatorship of atheists will turn out every bit as bad as the (real or imagined) theocracies that they decry. Also, this fixation on certification as the only proof of intelligence is problematic, to say the least. It would actually make the government worse, since it would tend to silence the views (and interests) of most of the populace in favor of people who have put in time in the system. Not every smart person goes for a PhD/MD/Law Degree, and there have been more than a few times where I've regretted signing up for the long haul in getting my Ph.D. For that matter, not every person who gets one of these degrees is going to be very good at governing, and expertise in physics does not guarantee a solid understanding of law, economics, politics, public policy, or ethics: this is the craftsman fallacy.
The second item comes from the Burnt Orange Report, which manages the difficult task of being even more leftist and inane than the Daily Texan. Here, they reveal a little more about what this abortion fight is really about (for the pro-abortion side):
"The old way of viewing reproductive rights as a women's issue alone is easier and in some ways encouraged by outdated parts of masculine culture, and it's wrong. When men stand with Texas women against this bill, they are also standing with Texas men....For those of us guys who like girls -- you know, like them like them -- and want to have relationships with them that may last anywhere from a few minutes to many years, we need to think about how this bill, by curtailing the bodily autonomy and sexual freedom of women, hurts us, too. We need to stand with women in their fight to control their own bodies...[because] Your sex life is at stake. Can you think of anything that kills the vibe faster than a woman fearing a back-alley abortion? Making abortion essentially inaccessible in Texas will add an anxiety to sex that will drastically undercut its joys. And don't be surprised if casual sex outside of relationships becomes far more difficult to come by."
Emphasis in original. Take-home point is: men, fight to keep abortions common because if we don't, responsibility-free sex may be harder to obtain. Gone are the days in which this is about helping the "hard" cases--though those are still useful tools for the pro-abortion side--or womyn's rights or whatever. We've heard the other side speak, and increasingly I am drawn to the conclusion that there are no common ground solutions. Which makes sense I suppose: one can't deal with demons without sacrificing a bit of his soul.