-
Archives
- August 2019
- July 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
-
Meta
Monthly Archives: December 2008
Micklethwait and Wooldridge on American conservatism
The Economist’s blog Democracy in America notices us, and one of its commenters says: To quote the distillation of Burke’s principles found in Mr [John] Micklethwait and Mr [Adrian] Wooldridge’s book on the subject [The Right Nation: Conservative Power in … Continue reading
Passing on Feser
I was intending to buy Ed Feser’s book as more background material for my half-baked next-project-but one: a handbook for secular conservatives. Reading his exchanges with Heather, though, and the stuff he’s posted on his site, I think I’ll pass. … Continue reading
Superstition Watch: Among the Unbelievers
New York’s young and hip seek assistance from fertility candles and “magickal seals.” The New York Times’ fashion editors are intrigued. A friend buys a “dressed” candle and lands an acting gig. “Coincidence?”
Brushfires
We have at least started a few brushfires among the conservative blogs. There is some good argumentative stuff in the comments thread to Daniel Larison’s TAC post here.
Books for Secular Cons
If it’s godless conservatism you’re wantin’, I’d offer A Mencken Chrestomathy by H.L. Mencken, I Can’t Go On, I’ll Go On: A Samuel Beckett Reader, ed. Richard W. Seaver, and the Loeb Horace: The Odes and Epodes by Q. Horatius … Continue reading
Good books for conservatives not on the usual lists?
How about some recommendations? And non-obvious ones at that! Let’s limit it to three submissions per person so that “you make them count.” Here are my heterodox submissions: The Blank Slate, The Iliad and The Elements.
Bus ads for disbelief
It’s not going to be much fun arguing with Ramesh Ponnuru if he insists on being so reasonable. Or, to put it differently: blessed are the untouchy and the non-offense-takers on both sides, for they get to see the whole … Continue reading
Central Pillar?
It was nice of Andrew Sullivan to link to us. (I’m not being facetious: It was nice of him. Thanks, Andrew.) I’ll take issue with his description of National Review as a “central pillar of theoconservatism,” though. National Review — yes, … Continue reading
Atheist Rock
For the atheist contingent here (as a secular site we also embrace mysterians, agnostics and apatheists) some light entertainment. Needs work, in my opinion. A lot of work. A whole lot. Credit for trying, though.
Mr. Feser’s “serious arguments for religion”
Ed Feser continues to argue for the scientific and rational basis of religion: If you really think that denying that religion is “unscientific” amounts to endorsing lame exercises in pop apologetics like the Templeton prayer experiment, then I’m afraid you’re … Continue reading