An old friend offered "MI-5" as a television show worth watching. Engaging theater is engaging theater. Well done, etc.
And this old friend, good Catholic, living in Maryland, admits that the show gets better as it gets along.
But the first episode of "MI-5" deals with a group of American anti-abortion radicals. Radicals that kill for their conviction. Life is precious. And now, a slippery slope.
When is it okay to take someone else's life?
If you try to force your way into my home, my understanding is, that I'm well within my rights to use deadly force in order to thwart your invasion threat.
Killing a baby. Thwarting an invasion threat.
Which is the clearer declaration of intent? A hoodlum, intent upon gathering enough loot to afford himself his daily dose of whatever, may not have expected to commit murder as a tactic in gathering said boodle. On the hunt for boodle, this miscreant enters someone's, anyone's, domicile. This entry creates enough supposition of wrong-doing that aggresive defense of ones home is an accepted outcome.
I find, increasingly, that few people dare to utter the significance between sufficient and necessary in terms of actions and outcomes. Is it necessary that one walks into an ocean in order for that person to become wet? No. But it is sufficient.
What is the greatest responsibility of any government?
Innovative energy policies?