« Miracles | Main | The Giant "Ass" in Assume »

August 25, 2009

Quote of the Day

... conservatism is, first, “an attitude to social and political change that looks for support to the ideas, beliefs, and habits of the past and puts more faith in the lessons of history than in the abstractions of political philosophy.” Second, it involves “a suspicion of democracy and equality.” This can be divided into a concern that the formal equality of men before God and law not be confused with equality in all things, particularly virtue, and that too much government power not be placed directly in the people’s hands. Third, conservatism reflects “the view that civilization is fragile and easily disrupted” and therefore it teaches that “the survival of the republic presupposes the virtue of citizens” and calls for “a highly educated elite as guardians of civilization.”

Within this unity, considerable diversity of opinion has flourished. Conservatives, Allitt emphasizes, have differed in their “attitude to the proper role of government” and can be found on “both sides of great conflicts.” For example, while Alexander Hamilton, as first secretary of the treasury, sought to increase the size and scope of government’s responsibility for the economy, conservatives, by the time of the New Deal, opposed a larger federal role in the economy. In the run-up to the Civil War, northern statesman Daniel Webster strove to conserve the Union and southern conservative John C. Calhoun strove to conserve the southern way of life. Since the founding, many American conservatives have viewed democracy as destabilizing because it gave too much power to ordinary people; more recently conservatives have seen ordinary people’s common sense and decency as a bulwark against elite ideas about radical change.

This definition very neatly summarizes my conception of the origins and philosophical underpinnings of conservatism.

Debate question of the day: do the GOP, or conservative pundits and bloggers, or really any mainstream modern conservatives, come anywhere close to this definition? I don't think so, and that assessment drives my growing frustration with the modern conservative movement. I think one could argue that conservatism has become completely untethered from its philosophical roots and this explains why modern conservatives do such a poor job of articulating conservative principles: they no longer have the slightest idea what those principles are or why they matter.

I will be writing more about this, but it's a big subject and I want to lay the groundwork for future discussions.

Posted by Cassandra at August 25, 2009 11:29 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3095

Comments

Let's go through that "unity" piece by piece.

[F]first, “an attitude to social and political change that looks for support to the ideas, beliefs, and habits of the past and puts more faith in the lessons of history than in the abstractions of political philosophy.”

I don't see any particular problem with the modern conservative movement here. It's aware, at least, of American history; and it bases its models on that history rather than on some abstract philosophy.

Second, it involves “a suspicion of democracy and equality.” This can be divided into a concern that the formal equality of men before God and law not be confused with equality in all things, particularly virtue, and that too much government power not be placed directly in the people’s hands.

Conservatives today champion the electoral college, which is the last Federal example of that principle thanks to the 17th Amendment. However, I think the Conservatives get credit here for championing Federalism -- the empowerment of states and localities, precisely because it breaks up the polity into managable sizes. We don't have the whole country making decisions about whether my street gets paved; we can do that in a group of thirty or so folks who care enough to show up at the meeting. That allows for the individual to be more powerful than the mob, which is the point being reached for here.

Progressives, meanwhile, want to centralize every possible power at the Federal level. The result is that 'the tyranny of the majority', and especially the bigger, populous states, becomes harder to resist.

Third, conservatism reflects “the view that civilization is fragile and easily disrupted” and therefore it teaches that “the survival of the republic presupposes the virtue of citizens” and calls for “a highly educated elite as guardians of civilization.”

I think modern conservatives get full credit on "the view that civilization is fragile and easily disrupted."

However, I think I disagree with the author a bit on the subject of conservatives wanting "a highly educated elite" to serve as "guardians." 'Guardians' is Plato's term, and has always been more inspirational to the left than to the right.

What conservatives have wanted is leadership by those who have had the right kind of upbringing. This is the Aristotlean concept: it's useless to try to teach ethics (he says in the Nicomachean Ethics) to someone who hasn't had the right kind of upbringing. Thus, education is highly valuable if you have that foundation to build on -- but without the right kind of upbringing, it's of no good, and may even be harmful by empowering people who are morally ill.

That's why conservatives are looking to "ordinary people’s common sense and decency" more these days. It's not "ordinary people" exactly: it's people with the old-fashioned upbringing. That's what "common sense and decency" mean. It means you had the right kind of upbringing.

These are the people you want to teach how to lead. It's not whether or not they're educated right now that matters. It's whether or not they've had the upbringing that produces common sense and decency. If they have, then you can teach them the rest. If they have not, you never can. No matter what you try to teach them, the important thing won't be there.

Conservatives have probably forgotten that is why they favor the old-fashioned kind of folk. But that's one of the things conservatism is for: because it believes in the fragility of civilization, it tries to preserve workable forms and traditions even when it doesn't remember why. There's always a reason why, even if you've forgotten what it was.

Posted by: Grim at August 25, 2009 01:38 PM

That may also explain some of the volume from the social conservative crowd. Now that power has been concentrated even more at the federal level it is vastly more important that the "virtue of citizens" be maintained. When the city/county gov'ts were the dominant force, what did it matter if Orange County Californian's morals were going to Helk in a handbasket? Now that Nancy Pelosi has more to do with how gov't [a/e]ffects your life, her constituent's morals become more important to good governance.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at August 25, 2009 02:35 PM

I think the Conservatives get credit here for championing Federalism

I'm not sure how accurate that is, Grim. A Federal law to sell health insurance across State lines to circumvent State regulations doesn't look very Federalist to me. Neither do Constitutional amendments on abortion or same-sex marriage. Those are all issues that should be decided at the State level not the Federal and yet a greater Federal role is championed in each case by conservatives.

Similarly, why is tort reform on the national agenda? Shouldn't this be a State by State issue? And there's Federal flood insurance which I'm pretty sure Republican Congressmen from Gulf Coast States support.

I'm willing to believe that conservatives may more often defend Federalism than liberals but both sides seem quite willing to be Federalist or not depending on which stance will best accomplish their desired ends. To me that's what's meant by Cassandra's statement that:

modern conservatives do such a poor job of articulating conservative principles: they no longer have the slightest idea what those principles are or why they matter.

Posted by: Elise at August 25, 2009 04:05 PM

A Federal law to sell health insurance across State lines to circumvent State regulations doesn't look very Federalist to me.

Except that the Constitution specifically grants the Federal gov't the power to regulate *inter*state commerce. Which isn't to necessarily say that a given law is smart or conservative, but that creating a Federal Law for a specifically enumerated Federal power isn't inappropriate per se.

As such I would support a Federal Law which repealed the current Federal Prohibition on such activity and simply require the Insurer to adhere to the laws of both the state they are in the state their customer is in. That way, a state may declare no out of state health insurance or not.

On the others I do agree with you: the only real difference in the R/D politicians is which area of life they want the feds to control.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at August 25, 2009 04:21 PM

That's why conservatives are looking to "ordinary people’s common sense and decency" more these days. It's not "ordinary people" exactly: it's people with the old-fashioned upbringing. That's what "common sense and decency" mean. It means you had the right kind of upbringing.

These are the people you want to teach how to lead. It's not whether or not they're educated right now that matters. It's whether or not they've had the upbringing that produces common sense and decency. If they have, then you can teach them the rest. If they have not, you never can.

I would submit that in a business environment, no one seriously believes you hire a CEO with little or no experience because he was "raised right" and has the right values and therefore OJT will overcome any deficiences of experience.

In any event, it seems that was the argument advanced for Harriet Miers' nomination to the Supreme Court.

That went over *so* well with conservatives.

Posted by: Cassandra at August 25, 2009 04:44 PM

As such I would support a Federal Law which repealed the current Federal Prohibition on such activity and simply require the Insurer to adhere to the laws of both the state they are in the state their customer is in. That way, a state may declare no out of state health insurance or not.

I could live with that also in Constitutional terms. That must be similar to how, say, trucking firms work. The Feds must regulate the interstateness of them but each state has its own laws on speed limits, weight, which roads can be used, how wide, any double trailers, and so on. That seems analogous to a state regulating any insurer that wants to do business within its borders regardless of where it originates.

The problem is that the proposals I've seen for interstate sales of health insurance are designed specifically to do an end run around State regulations, especially service mandates. Thus they're more like the Feds deciding no State can legalize medical marijuana which also seems like a non very Federalist position.

Posted by: Elise at August 25, 2009 04:48 PM

I don't think Grim meant to suggest that you hire them as CEO and then teach them. But rather that these are the people you want to teach (by, say, hiring at an entry level and mentoring?) so that eventually they *might* be able to become CEO.

Additionally, if they are morally bankrupt, no amount of mentoring even if starting from entry level job will produce someone you want to hand the reigns off to.

Morality is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at August 25, 2009 04:52 PM

The problem is that the proposals I've seen for interstate sales of health insurance are designed specifically to do an end run around State regulations...

Which is why the details matter. It isn't un-conservative just because it's a Federal Law. There are some Federal Laws that are conservative in nature, and others that aren't. (I would tend to agree that there are more of the latter than the former and that a disappointing number of conservative support the latter anyway).

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at August 25, 2009 05:05 PM

Hoo boy...you just had to bring up the Commerce Clause, didn't you? Insurance contracts are NOT interstate commerce!

The states regulate insurance providers and their agents under their inherent police powers - i.e. to protect their citizens against unscrupulous insurance providers, the likes of which had been fleecing trusting citizens since before beer was born.

Contradictory court rulings over many decades made a mess of whether insurance contracts were, or were not, "commerce" bending to the regulation of the federal government. Consequently, Congress tried to settle the matter by rendering insurance contracts exempt from the reach of the Commerce Clause when it enacted the McCarran-Ferguson Act in 1945. Typically, however, Congress was reluctant to let it's power over the states just slip away, so the Act left room for the feds to regulate certain aspects of the insurance business in the event that (a) the states failed to adequately oversee the product themselves, or (b) because Congress feels like it needs to scratch the back it's union donors..I mean it's loyal constituents (See, e.g. ERISA, HIPPA, etc.)

So... this is why states still have the authority to regulate insurance products, providers, and agents, and also why the Yankees suck.

I hope this information helps move the entire discussion safely into the all-snooze zone.

Posted by: spd rdr at August 25, 2009 05:11 PM

YAG has the sense of what I was trying to say, but it's a little more than that. It's not that conservatives want "a highly educated elite." What conservatives want is the right kind of person.

For example, one of the thing American conservatives insisted on was restricting the franchise to men; who were white; and also had property in the community of a certain value. That was shorthand for the kind of person they thought could be trusted to exercise power.

But the American Revolution was fought against Europe's version of Traditional Conservatism, which is a philosophy much older than this country. Even the most conservative of the American revolutionaries were wildly liberal (in the Classical sense) compared to English conservatives of the day. Recall that the English, in those days, had a similarly restricted franchise; but it only elected the House of Commons; and that parliament had a House of Lords that could flatly override the Commons, as they trusted nobility of blood more than any commoner; and there was a King who could, in some circumstances, ride herd on parliament.

That situation had only been produced by a series of liberalizing revolutions: the original power had been concentrated in the person of the king and his loyal nobility alone. It spread to the class of knights (who were not nobility) only because of the absolute need of such men in the wars of the period; the lower nobility and their knights won rights from the Crown during the reign of King John, whose barons forced the Magna Carta from him. But that gave rights mostly to the barons and the King: it was only over time that it came to be interpreted more broadly.

Etc., through the Wars of the Roses, which was followed by a conservative re-concentration of power under the Tudors and the "Divine Right of Kings" vision that predominated under the Stewart kings. That led directly to the English Civil War, which was the first major expansion of commoner power; but there was a counterrevolution under Charles II, followed by a re-counter-revolution under James II, followed by several attempted re-re-revolutions under the Jacobites.

So, yes, Hamilton was a conservative next to Jefferson; but neither of them were conservative next to the English conservatives. They believed that "the right kind of man" wasn't just any common man, but a man of noble blood and descent.

Education couldn't make a nobleman of a commoner. Right? They didn't have the upbringing.

That's the position that conservatives hold here. Education can't make the right kind of man: only upbringing can do that. And they're right, exactly to the degree that Aristotle was right.

The question -- and for Americans, a very difficult question -- is exactly where you draw the line. How do you say, in a land that is sworn to 'liberty and justice for all,' that only the right kind of man can be trusted with power?

More, the lines have shifted so far and so often that it's hard to see where we draw them now. It wasn't true that only the king and high nobility could handle power: Washington handled it, and he was a tradesman. It isn't true that only white men can handle it: Dr. King handled it with great finesse. You can run this line down as far as you like.

Yet there is a basic truth there, one that Aristotle saw and that remains true. Not everyone is trustworthy, and it really is a combination of blood and upbringing that makes you so. That is, some people are born wicked, for reasons that presumably have a physical cause; and some are raised so that they can't see the right, but have notions of "justice" that include killing innocents to bring about the Caliphate, or aborting children that interfere with their pursuit of gratification, or the idea that lying is OK if it's for a good cause. Etc.

That's the conservative position: that there is a kind of natural nobility among men, who are the right ones to lead. They need to be (at least) free of 'bad blood,' such as leads to wickedness; and they need to be given the right upbringing from an early age. If you get that person, they can become a good ruler and a wise leader once they are educated.

But not just anyone will do.

Posted by: Grim at August 25, 2009 07:00 PM

also why the Yankees suck

Well, now, if y'all are talking about those Americans who were born north of the Mason-Dixon line and still willingly live there you may have a point. (Except, of course, for my husband who had the good sense to marry a Southern girl.)

If, on the other hand, you're talking about the baseball team whose home stadium is in the Bronx then I suspect that you are a sour-grapes Red Sox fan - or Mets fan or Devil Ray fan. (Not a Baltimore fan - if they hated every team that regularly cleaned their clocks they'd spend 24/7 at it.)

As for the rest of your info, very interesting. I didn't think about ERISA, etc. I *should* have thought about COBRA since I've used it. Since I'm too lazy (you know us languid Southerners) to go look up the law do you think the Feds could get away with a law that would let insurance companies sell health insurance across state lines and ignore state regulations in the process?

And we've drifted pretty far from the original question which I suspect means it's easier to discuss smaller issues rather than really big concepts.

Posted by: Elise at August 25, 2009 07:08 PM

spd is not "a" Red Sox fan.

He is "the" Red Sox fan :p

Posted by: Cassandra at August 25, 2009 07:10 PM

(Obviously my comment about not discussing really big concepts was made before I saw Grim's last comment.)

They need to be (at least) free of 'bad blood,' such as leads to wickedness; and they need to be given the right upbringing from an early age.

The first part of this is interesting because of what seems to be the shifting liberal stance on this. It seems to me that for a while a good liberal believed that there was no such thing as "bad blood"; there was no inborn wickedness or craziness just environmental damage that could always be overcome with enough effort. Now it seems to me that a good liberal believes fervently in the physiological basis of mental illness - like sociopathy, psychopathy, schizophrenia. (I know they're not all the same but work with me here.) Yet I doubt any liberal would ever think of this as "bad blood".

The second part of this I reject because I believe it is possible to overcome a bad upbringing. People do move from being, say, abortion supporters to abortion opponents (or at least restricters); do learn to re-think the idea that killing millions in pursuit of an ideal is wrong; do learn that lying is not okay regardless of how good the goal. In other words, people who firmly believe the ends justify the means can learn otherwise. To deny that possibility denies a whole tradition of redemption and conversion.

Posted by: Elise at August 25, 2009 08:00 PM

Good!

On the subject of upbringing -- including the question of overcoming a bad upbringing (by, in effect, having a second one) -- see Iakovos Vasiliou, "The Role of Good Upbringing in Aristotle's Ethics." I knew Dr. Vasiliou when he was at Georgia State; he's at CUNY now.

Posted by: Grim at August 25, 2009 08:07 PM

"...also why the Yankees suck."

Huh, and here I thought the Yankess suck because.....well, the Yankees suck.

Thx, spd.

Posted by: DL Sly at August 25, 2009 11:22 PM

spd is not "a" Red Sox fan.

He is "the" Red Sox fan

I knew there had to be one out there somewhere.

(DL Sly's fault. I *was* managing to resist temptation.)

Posted by: Elise at August 26, 2009 12:47 AM

This is all very theoretical, philosophical and interesting, but how would you propose, if at all, to limit governance to those who have had the right kind of upbringing and exclude those who haven't had it?

Posted by: I Call BS at August 26, 2009 01:01 AM

That's the responsibility of those who select the candidates their separate parties run -- which they have long-since abrogated in favor of candidates who have "electability."

Politics has slowly ceased being the marketplace of ideas and is now the marketplace of personalities. Obama couldn't have been elected ratcatcher on the strength of his ideas -- he was elected because of people's infatuation with their perception of him as a *person*.

Posted by: BillT at August 26, 2009 03:44 AM

It sounds very similar to many of the things I'd heard from Fred Thompson. Too bad he's too old and all...

Posted by: cas at August 26, 2009 06:16 AM

On a lighter note, Edward "Ted" Kennedy is (finally) dead...much to the (surmised, but probable) elation of the Kopechne family.

How many needless deaths is that other Massachusetts Senator responsible for?

Posted by: camojack at August 26, 2009 07:22 AM

Now that Edward Kennedy has assumed room temp, I can honestly say good riddance. His politics, while liberal, are not the reason I am saying this. His licentiousness and rakehell ways are.

If Orrin Hatch even speaks for five seconds at his funeral, my head will explode.

You has to ax the question though: Did Edward try to get his own law rescinded to prevent Mitt Romney from being elected to his Senate seat?

Will Mitt even think about it?

Questions...questions..

Posted by: Cricket at August 26, 2009 08:11 AM

see Iakovos Vasiliou, "The Role of Good Upbringing in Aristotle's Ethics."

Well, phooey. I can only see the first page.

Posted by: Elise at August 26, 2009 08:52 AM

Hm... try your local library. Unfortunately, a lot of academic writing is still not available on the internet except via expensive pay sites. You may be able to access it via EBSCOhost or PRO Quest, if your library doesn't have JSTOR.

Posted by: Grim at August 26, 2009 08:56 AM

ICBS,
In Grim's framework, I would say that that is the electorate's job.

I don't completely hold to that framework, but there it is.

Personally, I'm a conservative not because I think the common man has better ideas than "the elite" but because I believe in the calming effects of diversification. A small powerful elite may do massive grand things (like, say, putting a man on the moon in the '60s) or massive horrifying things (like, say, killing 40mm peasants for a Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward).

To be right, you had better elect angels. Please tell me where these angels are that will come and organize society for us? I don't think they exist. But by making large groups and more groups each with only a little localized power you hedge your bets. Now it's not so important to find angels since the harm any demon can do is small and reversable. Sure, my city counselman can't send me to the moon, but he can't starve me to death either. I'll take that tradeoff.

And yet, change still progresses. Romantic marriage is, after all, a relatively new phenomenae. So much so that even some industrial societies don't practice it (India). And yet, many Americans today can't conceive of any other legitimate basis for it and therefor *any* two people who love each other should be allowed to marry. Are they right? IMO no. But I'd be a whole lot more convinced about it if there are 200mm people who believed otherwise than when 5 unelected guys in black robes declare otherwise.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at August 26, 2009 10:28 AM

Yet those five unelected justices in black robes are highly educated. They are an elite. And do they not shepherd society?

So they mean to do, in any event. Again, that is Plato's concept. It is not ours.

Posted by: Grim at August 26, 2009 10:31 AM

Politics has slowly ceased being the marketplace of ideas and is now the marketplace of personalities. Obama couldn't have been elected ratcatcher on the strength of his ideas -- he was elected because of people's infatuation with their perception of him as a *person*.

Uh-oh. A rift in the political-ideological continuum. This is pretty much what Anglachel (warning: language unfit for conservative ears) is arguing - and has been arguing for a while. Obama wanted to be President because he wanted to be President not because he had any idea about what to do with the office once he got it. I know a lot of conservatives disagree and view Obama as some schemer with big plans but I think Anglachel is right. He absorbed the basic liberal talking points but he has no idea how they fit together into an integrated world view. Not only does he have no idea how government works he doesn't have any idea how he'd like it to work. Not only does he have no idea how to get things done he doesn't even really have any ideas about what he'd *like* to get done. He just likes the shiny toys and the adulation.

The Democrats won the election by picking an electable personality but if they wanted to win their agenda they would have done better taking the gamble of nominating the possibly unelectable Hillary Clinton. (I am indebted to my husband for this insight into why the "progressives" are still crazy as loons even though they "won" - thus violating Jane's Law.)

Posted by: Elise at August 26, 2009 11:27 AM

Obama wanted to be President because he wanted to be President not because he had any idea about what to do with the office...

And so with George W. Bush. He would have been wiser, and happier, if he had stood down in favor of McCain in 2000.

Posted by: Grim at August 26, 2009 11:43 AM

And do they not shepherd society?

Depends on what you mean by shepherd. I prefer the baseball analogy.

If by shepherd you mean that they make sure that we follow our own agreed upon rules, I have no problem. The home plate umpire is highly trained and empowered to make a decision. Could you imagine if balls and strikes were voted upon by the crowd? It would quickly become unworkable as the players will never have any idea of what to expect.

If by shepherd you mean that they can decide to change the rules unilateraly because the outcome isn't "fair", "empathetic", "socially just", or they simpley believe it to be "a bad idea" then I agree that they *do*, but not that they *ought*.

And it has nothing to do with how highly educated or how highly moral they are. A group at some point in time may be (or have been) but whose to say the next crop will be? It's why we put the legislative function with the group that has hundreds of people and not the group that had tens (or one).

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at August 26, 2009 11:47 AM

And so with George W. Bush.

It's funny - I said that very thing to my husband last night. I do wonder if 9/11 had never happened whether the country might have simply drifted through the 4 (or 8) years of Bush' Presidency with little to galvanize either side.

Posted by: Elise at August 26, 2009 11:49 AM

Obama wanted to be President because he wanted to be President not because he had any idea about what to do with the office...

Somewhat off topic, but I find this to be a rather typical human failing. How many people do you know that got married because the loved the *idea* of being married and not the actual person they got married to? How many loved the *idea* of having children, but not so much actually raising them?

For me, it's not a ton, but it's enough to notice.

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at August 26, 2009 11:50 AM

Plato's concept of an ordered society also encompassed the acceptance and furtherance of slavery.

With all due respect, Plato's ancient take on the human condition has about as much relevance as to the current state of interaction between human beings as a kite bears upon the performance of a super-sonic fighter jet.

It's, what?, more than thousand years removed from me and mine? Please. I choose to set my own standards of personal behavior.

Damn or be damned

Posted by: spd rdr at August 26, 2009 11:57 AM

In fairness to Plato, whose vision I don't endorse, Aristotle also believed in "natural slaves." There's almost certainly something to the concept: there are people who want support and security at any cost of dignity or liberty.

Yet it is another concept hard to defend.

Posted by: Grim at August 26, 2009 12:00 PM

Yet it is another concept hard to defend.
Kind of like well intentioned mis-spellings.

Posted by: spd rdr at August 26, 2009 12:13 PM

Weeelll, the blogger Lawdog suggested as a start that we prohibit anyone with a law degree or poli sci degree from running for or being appointed to federal office. :)
That might be a start - narrow the pool to people with experience in the real world. I'd add sociologists and education degrees as well, unless the person has at least three years of classroom experience.

I have portable health insurance, but it is very expensive and the premiums change every time I move to a different state. It's also a "dire illness/ post-car-wreck" policy and not a doctor-visit policy.

Posted by: LittleRed1 at August 26, 2009 12:26 PM

"I choose to set my own standards of personal behavior." -- spd rdr

Gee, that's almost God-like! :)

Posted by: ziobuck at August 26, 2009 01:02 PM

Yep. Almost.
And from there it gets really interesting.

Posted by: spd rdr at August 26, 2009 01:54 PM

Gee, that's almost God-like! :)

Well, he *is* an Irishman :p

Posted by: I'm Gonna Pay for This... at August 26, 2009 01:58 PM

In order to find his equal, an Irishman is forced to talk to God.

Posted by: Stephen the Irishman at August 26, 2009 02:11 PM

"I choose to set my own standards of personal behavior." -- spd rdr

Gee, that's almost God-like! :)

Posted by: ziobuck at August 26, 2009 01:02 PM

Yep. Almost.
And from there it gets really interesting.

Posted by: spd rdr at August 26, 2009 01:54 PM

Gee, that's almost God-like! :)

Well, he *is* an Irishman :p

Posted by: I'm Gonna Pay for This... at August 26, 2009 01:58 PM"

Grim was right...

Steven* has been making a lot of appearances lately.

Back to the topic;

"I will be writing more about this, but it's a big subject and I want to lay the groundwork for future discussions."
Looking forward to them and enjoying the discussion so far. Much to mull.

*WARNING: LANGUAGE most foul, well two words worth anyway

Posted by: bthun at August 26, 2009 02:18 PM

Yikes! Steven is getting arooned.

Posted by: bthun at August 26, 2009 02:19 PM

Ha! In my distraction, I forgot to plug in the link to Steven's, or Stephen's chat with the Almighty.

Ah well, surely everyone knows the scene by heart.

Posted by: bthun at August 26, 2009 02:49 PM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)