Sunday, September 23, 2007

What Is the Meaning of Is?

Recent events in the political arena have highlighted what can be safely said to be a continuous ready-made fodder for humorists and columnists. Jay Leno, David Letterman, Maureen Dowd and other commentators on the human situation must thank the stars every day for the likes of Sen. Craig, Rep. Vitter and Rudy Guiliani's wife and her cell phone, not to mention Rudy himself. A virtual treasure trove of such incidents guarantees them a job for life. I guess whether or not someone would consider whether anyone of these events is or is not funny would depend upon what one's definition of 'is' is.

Tuesday, September 4, 2007

Another NYTimes OP-Ed Response

September 3rd,20074:18 am
Geez, Stanley. You are beginning to sound like me, an old geezer who will say anything to provoke a situation. First you started on atheists, then complained about getting a damn cup of coffee, windmills in your backyard, etc., etc. I always thought the battleground was between conservatives and liberals. Now you, in effect, claim that it is between liberals and true believers of various forms of religion. For the past few years I have been struggling and trying to understand what it meant to be a conservative because all my self-designated conservative friends have labelled me a liberal. The best I have been able to do in that regard is to consider all the acts that have occurred under that rubric as “pseudo-conservatism”. (Doesn’t “pseudo-con” have a better ring that “neo-con”?) Now you introduce an intriguing tenet of liberal thought by stating “But what of religions that will not stay in place, but claim the right, and indeed the duty, to order and control the affairs of the world so that the tenets of the true faith are reflected in every aspect of civic life?” Liberals, as and if I understand your argument, reject that tenet based upon the philosophies of Locke and others. But let me interject a thought or two; didn’t our founding forefathers recognize and thoroughly consider this potentially divisive problem? Didn’t they enact the first amendment of our Constitution to protect us from various forms of religion that would seek to force their beliefs on the populace? By my thinking, I would propose that anyone who believes that our Constitution is the law of the land must be a liberal.
— Posted by Tom Bleakley