Readers’ Links
Kyle Matthews at Vogue Republic takes on Ezra Klein over modern liberalism and race/class.
Over at Bleakonomy, Dan Summers does the unthinkable!
Mike at The Big Stick explores a Presbyterian approach to education.
At The Politic, Jonathan McLeod challenges President Obama’s hubris regarding the stimulus.
UPDATE (from Mark):
I wanted to add a few more links. There’s an excess of great stuff today on our blogroll.
Transplanted Lawyer, as always, has some outstanding stuff. I’m this close to just mirroring his site instead of writing my own posts. Anywho, do check out his posts on judicially-enforced religious indoctrination and, especially, Arizona’s pending anti-Sharia legislation.
Additionally, check out Jason Kuznicki on whether there is a place for gays in conservative politics.
20 comments
Egads! Thanks for the link.
Jonathan did what?
Jonathan McLeod Reply:
February 18th, 2010 at 9:53 pm
That’s not the Jonathan McLeod I know!
Yeah, a link from the LOG will light my blog up like a Christmas tree. Enjoy all the hits, Dan! And thanks, as always, to Mark for the reference.
Jaybird Reply:
February 18th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
Hey, TL. Tried to leave you a comment, I don’t know how to leave an anonymous one. Here you go anyway. (This is for your “Am I Just Phrasing The Concept Badly?” post)
I’m an atheist but here is my shot:
Assume a deity.
Assume that this deity also created the universe.
Assume that this deity not only created the universe but likes to keep His or Her hand in when it comes to people and, as such, had a hand in your creation as well.
Assume that this deity does this because of some greater plan.
Assume that this deity is Good.
Now.
Wouldn’t not only knowing but actually having a relationship with this deity be a good thing in and of itself?
He or She created you! He or She loves you! Knowledge of this deity is in your best interest not just because of some reward after you die… but for its own sake!
There. That’s my best shot.
Jaybird
North Reply:
February 18th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Jay, you left out an important step methinks:
Assume that this deity and their desires as they pertain to us creations is knowable.
Jaybird Reply:
February 18th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Sure, okay.
I imagine that we’d have to assume that the deity would actively want such a relationship as well (as opposed to a deity who wants to see what happens when He or She isn’t constantly whispering in our ears).
North Reply:
February 18th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
Yeah it’s where my agnosticism hasn’t been bridged personally.
Theists can make some very interesting philosophical arguments in favor of the existence of a creator deity, but I’ve never read a good link connecting that deity to A) any idea of a deity who’s desires are knowable, revealed truth and all that or B) any actual practiced in the world religion.
Jaybird Reply:
February 18th, 2010 at 7:42 pm
That’s where mysticism bridges the gap for many. They have a mystical experience and, tah-dah, you have moved from here to there like that guy in that television show.
The problem is that as much explanatory power mystical experiences have for the experiencer, they don’t do a whole lot of good for those who have not been so blessed. They present, to the outsider, identically to things that are likely to lead to error.
But that’s probably another rant.
Transplanted Lawyer Reply:
February 19th, 2010 at 10:35 am
Jaybird, thanks for the comment. I set my blog to not allow for anonymous posts after a rash of anonymous trolling; sorry if that caused you some inconvenience.
Anyway, what you are describing sounds very closely analagous to a child reciprocating love with a parent. Which I’d agree would be a good thing, given all of your assumptions (or their analogues in a parental relationship). I think that’s a pretty good shot at what I was interested in learning, so thank you again.
Jaybird Reply:
February 19th, 2010 at 11:07 am
Heh. I was more thinking of loving master with a dog.
There’s a lovely essay here (and I say that as a cat person):
http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/02/0602/060402.html
It’s the one for Monday the 17th.
The Kuznicki piece is definitely food for thought.
Louis B. Reply:
February 18th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
Yeah. The most transcendent feature of conservatism is surely a tolerance for inequality. Any group vying for greater equality is not likely to be welcome to such a movement.
Rufus Reply:
February 18th, 2010 at 7:49 pm
I was thinking more about the nostalgia for the past. I know a number of older gay couples and they tend to be “conservative” in the way that older people tend to be conservative, but it never occurred to me that, of course, their political (maybe that should be cultural) goals are going to be progressive just because the past offers nothing for them. Of course, some of them actually are Conservatives… but that tends to mean something different in Canada.
Thanks for the link and these are some really great/interesting posts esp Dan & TL
Jaybird Reply:
February 18th, 2010 at 8:05 pm
Aw, man… your post ate my comment!
Kyle Reply:
February 18th, 2010 at 8:07 pm
here or at my site?
Kyle Reply:
February 18th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
fixed – it thought you were spam.
#skynet
Jaybird Reply:
February 18th, 2010 at 8:25 pm
True/slant does the exact same thing.
Thanks for the link, Scott.