Since there is no explanation and an email request has gone unanswered, I am not sure why a link to this blog is on the relatively small blogroll of a conservative leaning candidate for Congress. A look at his views suggests the leaning of this blog is not copasetic to his, though it does seem it favors "blogspot" links. Perhaps, I won some sort of lottery. Oh well ... things like that suggest why it pays to look at my hit totals now and again.
I still simply do not read enough conservative leaning material though enough moderates/liberals/libertarians provide dissenting views, links thereto, or obtain conservative criticism that I do believe offers me an adequate flavor. I also try to look at things with an open and critical mind, leading me to be annoyed at times by the somewhat knee-jerk responses of some people I overall agree with.
Again, I recognize my own limitations. I remember some stupid comment I made some years back to the degree I was somehow so much more "open minded" and how sad it was that more people was not like me. Something along those lines -- time makes one a bit more humble, though yeah, I still am full of myself. I think it runs in the family or something. This is problematic since we all have somewhat different views.
Anyway, I do hate knee-jerk responses, though I wholeheartedly understand them. For instance, those -- no matter how much I note that my criticism is not solely personal or only offered by the usual suspects -- who continue to offer a simplistic defense of the Bush Administration. I respect those who disagree with me on various issues and try not to make cheap shots, especially when they hold deeply held views (e.g., pro-life*). I have gotten some positive feedback in this department, which is reassuring, since it shows my overall philosophy is worthwhile.
And, sometimes, different views are just too hard to bridge. But, I am growing to despise -- seriously, it really pisses me off -- shallow reasoning, especially from people clearly intelligent and who sad to say just seem intellectually lazy about the whole thing. I have a policy -- though when they directly challenge me, it is hard to uphold -- of just avoiding such people. I can write and reason ad nauseam -- I always did like essay questions -- but darn if I take these things personally. Surely, they sadly shake their heads as well when they read me, and one can note aggravation in their comments as well -- sadly, it is their day to shine these days. I leave it to others to decide who is more right.
---
* For instance, I had a colloquy with someone who believes abortion is akin to "infanticide" and the practice of killing newborns with one's heel or tossing them off mountains. One reply to the comment was "sorry, the law does not interpret things that way ... goodbye" ... and I thought it a bit of a cheap shot. Now, I like the guy and many of his posts are brilliant, and some of the replies are to obvious snarks, who probably deserve the scorn. And, the pro-life brigade can be quite bothersome. But, they also are not just full of shit -- they honestly believe what they are saying. Sometimes, they spout patently false reasoning, but I am not so sure that said reasoning is not often also shown to some great degree by their opposites.
Anyway, I already commented that an editorial by William Saletan on abortion left a bit to be desired. In honor of the latest anniversary of Roe v. Wade, it probably is worth noting that a bit more reflection led me to realize it was even lamer than a first glance suggested.
I particularly "like" his reflections on the morality of the practice, including how abortion rights proponents have not addressed this issue. This sort of thing is probably why I grew tired of the guy’s Slate columns.