That's good then. Probably I've been reading too much Rod Dreher.

"Just to be crystal clear, if and when there is a legitimate threat to the religious liberty of an individual as it applies in these circumstances, I will defend their right to that liberty. That should not be an issue here. Please don’t make it one. "

Here's a very obvious and plausible example; a gay couple decides that they want to be married in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church refuses. The gay couple sues the Catholic Church for a hate crime, discrimination, etc., since, after all, this is now a federally-guaranteed right. No one could have any legal basis on which to argue that refusing marriage to a gay couple isn't "just as bad" as the Catholic Church hypothetically refusing to marry a black man and a white woman. Try to tell me that the gay couple wouldn't win that lawsuit in America in 2020; and don't try to tell me that you and, I guess, Andrew Sullivan posting valiantly about "but, gasp, that's a threat to religious liberty!" will have any effect.

It isn't based on those passages, it's based on all sorts of things ... the wisdom books of the bible, where the earth/church is presented as female; all of the language of 'bride' and 'bridegroom', spread throughout the OT and NT; and from natural law (i.e. human biology).  Though, as an Orthodox, I can't conceivably agree with you that we can somehow "include" another "sort of love" in the Church's teachings; whether one can recognize (essentially secular) civil marriages, well, that's a whole other question.

Perhaps it's because the people have these debates aren't familiar with theology, to any real extent, but no one ever mentions Catholic/Orthodox views on theology of the body or the theology of the sexes; it isn't just some random injunctions in Leviticus and St. Paul, the point is that marriage is a profound and mystical conjunction of male and female, which mirrors Christ and the Church, etc., etc.

My theory is; drugs, either recreational or psychiatric. He'll break down and enter rehab in like 8-10 months

That's pretty hilarious

Andrew Sullivan was complaining about this too, but I just don't understand it ... the farcical aspect of it was that something like 10-12 of the questions across various categories were related to marijuana, and this is clearly the result of ballot stuffing, a bunch of bored Digg/4chan types clicking 'refresh' over and over. The fact that most people would support modest decriminialization of marijuana doesn't somehow validate the absurdity of this particular case (where marijuana was voted as one of the vital issues for the economy, etc.).

It's always very important to note WHEN and WHY the pro-choice position became so popular---the 60s and 70s, when there was a bohemian (or, selfish quasi-bohemian) denial of nature, responsibility, morality, etc. Only later are there philosophical justifications for abortion-on-demand; it began with wanting sex without consequences. (And yes, I know that this doesn't apply to cases of rape/incest, which is a whole other, more complex issue; I'm referring to 90% of abortions.)

Well, if you read Moore's other stuff, it's not just all about the ultraviolence ... also, Snyder added various extra R-rated violent-esque things, so this is perhaps also his fault.

(And maybe there's really no other way to address Gawker bloggers? A dignified analysis somehow seems like a category mistake.)

Sigh ... just please keep in mind that I say these things AS A FAN OF YOUR BLOG. I've been reading you for a while and take great interest in your opinion.

And in all seriousness --- how can you not see what I'm talking about? Do you notice anyone else (on your blogroll, on LOG) calling Robert Stacy McCain a "tedious nothing", or calling Gawker bloggers "whiny, bitchy nothings," apart from, say, someone like Gawker bloggers? Who, as you've established, are incredibly insecure about their lack of status, meaning, accomplishments ... which they exhibit by means of an incredibly caustic, snarky tone. Something like, e.g., your post.

And so when I try to helpfully point out this parallelism (i.e. that shrill insults ALWAYS indicate insecurity and speak very badly of the writer, whether it's you or a Gawker blogger), in a non-snarky way, you can only think to respond with ... a caustic, snarky comment.

Except ... there was no snark, and I didn't insult you.

Actually I thought that was one of the less ridiculous Gawker posts; both with that student and the NYU protest, there really is something sort of ridiculously "effete vegan 20something white academic socialist" about it ... claiming police brutality or imperalist domination when dealing with cops who are just doing their jobs. The post didn't seem particularly snarky, just sort of incredulously annoyed at the trend in general. Etc.

Also, and I realize that my earlier commentary on this matter (at l'Hote) didn't exactly make your day, but SERIOUSLY, writing things like "graduates of second-choice colleges" and "the bloggers’ burning envy, resentment, sexual frustration [?!] and impotence", plus the fact that you're doing a vapid, snarky takedown of something that is itself ... vapid and snarky (except, not really, in the case of that particular post), making angry, bitter attacks on a website that jumped the shark in like 2006, etc. It just comes off as very weird.

gah, that's one of my favorite rilke poems!

Well ... I think Linker's point was that Neuhaus et al. resist liberalism AS SUCH (Macintyre does as well, in his own way, though he doesn't bother with politics at all, instead washing his hands of the whole business), and that when you resist liberalism, what do you have left? Linker, if I'm not mistaken (and judging by his book) seems to at least hint at the idea: what you have left is something tending towards authoritarianism and fascism (see: ultra-conservative Catholics in Vichy France, Franco's Spain, etc. etc.), a top-down authoritarian theocracy. Which is what came before liberalism, obviously (well, just before; prior to that you have the Athenian/Roman humanist pagan virtues etc.)

All good points, but the fact remains that this particular video is ineffably creepy.

I really wish people would stop saying this about 'Lost' ... the writers had an arc planned out before starting the first season (the basic events, the ending, etc.), and then a lot of leeway in how they got there.

And this happens all the time, with Tolkien for example (he knew loosely what the ending of LOTR would be, but made things up as he went along; you know, creativity, etc.) David Chase didn't have every single plot revelation in the Sopranos planned out in 2000, and yet no one holds this against him, right?

Oddly enough, I actually enjoyed 'Eagle Eye,' despite knowing that it made no sense; but maybe this just means that I've grown to know standard plots so well that I can make do with half-assed allusions/indications toward coherence.

But maybe, as well, you're missing the point that 'truth in film,' as it were (and I'm not original in this; see Bazin, Deleuze), isn't simply propositional or plot-driven. There are all sorts of different aesthetic phenomenological manifolds going on ... often I don't really care about plot at all, and many great films don't care so much about it either.