Thank you so very much for the link to the “nonesoblind” site. You have introduced me to a new author and intellect who is so very, very stimulating. I am thrilled at the level of discussion and the quality of writing I found there. I have looked for and will read the author’s books which promise to be further stimulating.

Thanks for the link and keep up the great work on your site.

There are also some Libertarian voices on the Cato Institute website who have been challenging this administration with some very good pieces.

Isn’t it a pity that the MSM excludes these voices from their Sunday morning “political” discussion. I guess they just don’t fit the MSM profile for those on the right. Heaven forbid that we might actually see a little grey mixed in with the usual black & white storyline each Sunday.

or

http://apoeticjustice.blogspot…..tward.html

THRUSTING AMERICA’S LOVE OUTWARD!

My point, stated a bit inelegantly, was that Jesus was really not about politics, whether liberal, conservative, or radical. I’m with you in deploring the misuse of Jesus’ teachings by conservatives to further their authoritarian agenda. It’s divisive and ruinous.

Jesus spoke in parables to attempt to ensure that the teachings would be understood and of sustenance to spiritually inclined people who have an appreciation for the allegorical and metaphorical, which is the real “language” of spirituality, unlike the literalism of established religion, which soon becomes corrupted and a tool for reactionaries. Unfortunately, that’s what the modern American conservatived do. They really don’t get it.

My point is: to purge, exorcize if you will, the demonic association that liberalism has acquired over the past 20 years, we need to redefine what liberalism is.

Yes, Jesus was a radical. But he was also a master communicator who picked his words carefully for maximum effect. I’m just doin’ WWJD..

I, too, read the interview and was really underwhelmed by Fein. It was obvious that the really engaging mind in the dialogue was Andy Schmookler’s. I really respect Andy, and find he has both a first-rate mind, but is also way, way ahead of most in his understanding of dynamics, events, and ideas.

Fein is just trying to have it both ways. He says the Democrats are intelletcually bankrupt, but doesn’t posit evidence of it. He rues Republian abuse of power by the BushCo Administration, but seems content to let the Republicans control government, so long as they have “oversight.” Please.

I also find his praise for Roberts and Alito puzzling, inasmuch as they advocate a jurisprudence that neatly supports the BushCo power grab. And, has been rightly pointed out, Roberts was one of the legal facilitators of the Florida power grab in 2000.

Fein is basically a Federalist Society guy who doesn’t want the Democrats to have the same kind of power that Bush has taken for the presidency. His admiration for Socrates, Burke, et al. notwithstanding, he needs to at least be honest about the fact that his own party is responsible for the moral invertebracy he deplores.

I think yes. To successfully topple a tyrant, they must be rejected by their base. Can we sway the Kool Aide demographic? Of course not. Can we poach some moderates? You betcha…

I know this makes some people cringe, but after you say it a couple of times, it doesn’t feel so icky.

Repeat after me: Jesus was a liberal.

Supporting argument: he said all people were equal, slaves, lepers, whores and beggars. Very dangerous stuff in Pontious’ plot of the Roman Empire. And the way Christ died is the proverbial nail (ooh, a crucifixion pun): the form of execution for religous heresy was stoning. Political sedition earned death on the cross. Christ died because he was a liberal.

Repeat after me: Jesus was a liberal.

He rationalizes that conservatives have not been more vocal in their criticisms of Bush’s power grabs because they are afraid of losing their access, and hence their paychecks. Democrats are, nevertheless, the bankrupt ones.

He dodges the question of Roberta and Alito and says that he is suspending judgment on them until the Hamdan decision, ignoring the fact that Roberts had recused himself because he had supported the government’s position when the case was heard in a lower court. As for Alito who has shown even greater deference to the executive, did Fein really expect him to do anything other than wholly back the Administration as he then did? To top it off, he tries to diminish Hamdan’s importance.

And Kerry? Fein says that he would not have voted for Bush, or Kerry, but would have done a write in. When given the hypothetical that his was the deciding vote, only then does Fein say he would vote for Kerry.