Weblogs of thoughtful conservative librarians?

Rory: I am not suggesting any change in LISNews policy. This post has nothing to do with LISNews.

If people have thoughtful conservative-librarian weblogs to suggest, I'll add them to my personal Bloglines list, nothing to do with LISNews or anyone else, at least for a while.

"Thoughtful" equals, at a minimum:
Being able to differentiate between liberal and socialist
Being able to distinguish between the commons and socialism
Being able to distinguish constitutional conservatives from neocons.

This isn't a hypothetical. There are (in my opinion) a fair number of thoughtful conservative comments at LISNews, along with some that don't deserve the adjective. I wouldn't mind keeping track of what some of the former have to say on their own sites.

Comments

The difference between socialism and liberalism

A liberal thinks that gays should be allowed to marry.

A socialist thinks that medical care should be free to all.

While there may be some (or even a significant) overlap between these two groups, it's not hard to find political parties that agree with one of the above statements but not the other. Of course, it's impossible to find such a party in the US, but that's beside the point.

Re:Bible Thumping?Re:thoughtful conservatives

Is the reverse true? I identify as Christian in my theology, but I am also socially progressive.

Thoughtful, perhaps

Of course my flights of thought may be considerd thoughtful.


I have decided to blog again. I did it for a few weeks and gave up as blogspot on my server was not working as well as I wanted it to.

I have installed movable type on my site. We'll see how well it works. I have enabled comments but you have to put in a name and email address, and for now I have decided to moderate comments. I will only remove spam. Lots of people disagree with me and I'll post their comments (perhaps not happily post as I first typed, but I'll post them).


So if you consider my blog thoughtful (it is full of thoughts, I'll guarantee that!) conservative (I certainly don't consider myself a neocon, I supported Nixon) then perhaps you'll consider it. I can't guarantee that it will be updated daily, but I can assure you that it will be true to my thoughts and opinions. If you want the thoughts of a papist, conservative feel free to read it.

thoughtful conservatives

From what I see and hear conservatism is not about being thoughtful, it's about being pious, it's not about distinguishing between ambiguous concepts, it's about what's right and wrong, it's about choosing sides, making things simple, going back to the way things used to be, it's about righteous indignation, it's not about understanding the difference between the commons and socialism, it's about stopping anything that isn't easily explained in terms of profit and loss. To me it looks like conservatism seeks to reduce everything to right and wrong, and what's right comes from today's interpretation of the bible. As far as I can tell conservative is no longer separate from christian. Conservative is now the opposite of secular, not it's not the opposite of liberal.There are (in my opinion also) a fair number of thoughtful conservative comments at LISNews. I'm not so sure it is possible to be a thoughtful (outside of thinking WWJD) conservative, the two terms seem mutually exclusive to me, at least in most cases. I see those who define themselves as conservative doing so by using religion first, and anything else second.This shouldn't be read as a an attack on conservatism, but rather how I see it being defined, and why I think it's tough to be a thoughtful conservative in the sense I felt you were defining it (thoughtful) in this situation. Not really arguing semantics I hope, but rather philosophies.ThoughtfulConservativePious

Bible Thumping?Re:thoughtful conservatives

Exactly who in the LISNews community has been using religion as the basis for all their arguements? Or even a majority of their arguements?

pretty thoughtless

What is the difference between commons and socialism?

What is the difference between socialism and liberalism other then one may be considered a subset of the other?

What is *your* definition of a neocon? Mine is an individual who used to be a very active liberal and changed over to conservatism later on (as opposed to college liberals turning into workforce conservatives)

This is going to be a flame but its the only real response I can make: How about you be a responsible, thoughtful adult and say who *you* think are or are not thoughtful consevatives and explain why instead of trying to get us to curry your favor by impressing you with our 'thoughtfulness.'

There is a time and place for intelligent debate, there is also a time and place to get angry and say your angry.

If there is some issue that you feel you would like a 'thoughtful' conservative response to then throw it out there and see what you get.

Re:Bible Thumping?Re:thoughtful conservatives

No one in particular in the LISNews community, I just think, well, just what I said, As far as I can tell conservative is no longer separate from christian. That doesn't mean I have any one LISNewster in mind, just conservatives in general.

Re:pretty thoughtless

Necon, Socialism, The Commons, the web is the best example of a commons. Maybe it's easier to define based on what it's not, rather than what it is? The Commons is not black and white, it's not win or lose, it's not socialism, it's not closed, it's not for sale, it's not controlled, it's not a zero sum game, it's not opposed to making money, it's not a threat to capitalism. The only reason anything (shush, LISNews, Amazon) on the web exsists is because of the commons. It's not really easy to understand either, because it doesn't seem to fit with how we've been thinking about ownership, to fully understand and appreciate the commons requires some reading.

Re:Bible Thumping?Re:thoughtful conservatives

Blake, that's just not right. Are a majority of Christians conservative and vice versa, yeah probably. But there are a bunch of sources for conservative thought that are not religous by nature, starting with National Review but also the Weekly Standard and a variety of blogs and columnists.

I will say that I think part of being conservative requires some type of belief in a higher power but how you choose to acknowledge that is up to you.

Also keep in mind that one of the major weakness for liberals these days is a lack of a core. From PETA to NAACP to NOW to a host of splinter groups, none really having anything to do with the other but all together make up the Democrat vote. That's an oversimplification but a political party should have a core set of values like any profession does, that applies to everyone. The fact that Republicans believe it is based to some degree on Judeo-Christian values is a strength not a weakness.

Re:pretty thoughtless

No, outside of government anything goes. No conservative is going to make a legitimate arguement against what individuals do with their own time and resources. If a group of people want to start a commune in Kentucky they are welcome to do it. But when you apply those theories to State and Federal government they fall apart pretty quickly.

As for Shush and LISNews, you and I both know that we pay to play and we devote our own time and energy to do so as well. Any and all advancements in the Internet have been made by individuals who wanted to improve their own personal experience or to create a product they could sell and profit from.

The Commons, while interesting, is really going to be only a hobby for some and a stepping stone for others.

Re:Thoughtful, perhaps

You've been added to my Bloglines list. Thanks.

Re:pretty thoughtless

Whew. I thought there might be eight candidates here. Instead there's one candidate (a good one, I think) and a whole bunch of strangeness.

"No conservative is going to make a legitimate arguement [sic] against what individuals do with their own time and resources."

So:
* No conservative argues that the Federal government should overrule women and their doctors on health-related issues
* No conservative argues that the Federal government should tell libraries to restrict access to material
* No conservative argues that the Federal government should define marriage, overruling any state or local definitions
I could go on, but...why bother?

Your comment about Internet advancements is fascinating. So much for DARPA: They had nothing to do with it, I see.

And so much for fire departments, police forces, public roads--all part of the Commons, and not thought of as a hobby by some of us.

I'm also responding to your earlier comment. I am not asking anyone to curry favor with me; why on earth should I? I don't expect conservatives to "curry favor," like me, or read my stuff.

I did offer a few basic distinctions that I thought any thoughtful conservative (which would include some people who used to work for National Review--I haven't looked at in a while) would be able to make pretty easily. If you don't see those distinctions, then you don't fit my definition of what I'm interested in. And if you think I'm wrong, that's your privilege.

And if you get angry because I fail to meet your expectations, that's a waste of your own emotions.

Re:pretty thoughtless

~~* No conservative argues that the Federal government should overrule women and their doctors on health-related issues~~

Nope. But if your talking about protecting a baby that's actually living inside her thats something else altogether.

~~* No conservative argues that the Federal government should tell libraries to restrict access to material~~

A library is a public resource not an individuals.

~~* No conservative argues that the Federal government should define marriage, overruling any state or local definitions
I could go on, but...why bother?~~

We argue the definition of marriage in reference to government. Any individual is free to marry who or what they please but don't force others to acknowledge it.

~~Your comment about Internet advancements is fascinating. So much for DARPA: They had nothing to do with it, I see.~~

They invented it to benefit their own needs, not out of some concept of the 'common good'. If I'm grumpy you're being snotty.

~~And so much for fire departments, police forces, public roads--all part of the Commons, and not thought of as a hobby by some of us.~~

The example Blake gave had nothing to do with any of those issues, he linked to a very specific site. Who is arguing against police and fire departments? Who is saying these are bad things? Keep in mind you can label it how you want but they are also social in nature. That makes them no more wrong then libraries.

~~I'm also responding to your earlier comment. I am not asking anyone to curry favor with me; why on earth should I? I don't expect conservatives to "curry favor," like me, or read my stuff.~~

Your too lazy to repsond to whats actually out there but instead want someone who is willing to argue on your terms and you do this by making it sound like only you know what a conservative should be.

~~I did offer a few basic distinctions that I thought any thoughtful conservative (which would include some people who used to work for National Review--I haven't looked at in a while) would be able to make pretty easily. If you don't see those distinctions, then you don't fit my definition of what I'm interested in. And if you think I'm wrong, that's your privilege.~~

Your distictions are irrelevant, try dealing with actual issues.

~~And if you get angry because I fail to meet your expectations, that's a waste of your own emotions.~~

I'm not angry at you or about this, I get angry about issues that mean something to me and I get annoyed by people who think that by 'staying above it all' they somehow have a more intelligent view when in fact they don't really offer anything. If you really weren't concerned about likability you'd be more honest and more direct. If you were really interested in conservative thought you'd address those of us who are conservatives instead of trying to redefine it into something else so that you don't really have to address anyone.

The Commons,

You really don't get it. Do some reading.

Re:Bible Thumping?Re:thoughtful conservatives

I am a conservative, and my views seem to dove tail with that of mainstream Judiasm (not that nonsense Madonna prattles on about).


Of course they probably also reflect non-extremist Islam, and Zoroastorism for all I know. I don't think for a second that Christians have a corner on the conservative, nor on the moral market.

Re:pretty thoughtless

Fine. You don't think I deal with actual issues. You don't think I "really offer anything." You don't see distinctions as relevant that I believe are essential.

That is entirely your privilege, but I see no point in continuing this--well, "discussion" is probably the wrong word. You've now gone on the personal attack, calling me lazy and dishonest.

If you don't think I have anything to offer, then I assume (probably correctly) that you don't read Cites & Insights, and I wonder why on earth you're looking at my journal?

Kentucky?

If a group of people want to start a commune in Kentucky they are welcome to do it.


Not that all communes in Kentucky are liberal. I think these guys are pretty conservative. Of course some of the ideas of one of the guys from here, Thomas Merton, were pretty radical: race relations, peace, social justice. So perhaps I shouldn't call them conservatives. Of course I am in favor of all of those things as well.


Off to examine my conscience.

Re:pretty thoughtless

Could have been that heading that had to do with conservatives.

What you don't get is that entire initial post was nothing more then a personal attack against every conservative blogger on this list. You know who is who around here, you know Tomeboy has a blog, Conservator, Nbruce, and myself. The only new blog was Mdoneil. You weren't interested in actually getting links, you knew the links. You just wanted to make a snobbish attack and still stay above the fray by not being specific.

Re:The Commons,

I get you're trying to swap a controversial word with one that is less so. There is nothing new under the sun, just old stories told with new charachters and settings.

Re:thoughtful conservatives

I gather from what you have written, you don't really know much about conservatives.

Re:thoughtful conservatives

Well...there's thoughtful...then there's 'pchuck. There's a BIG difference.

Re:thoughtful conservatives

Clarification.

My post:

I gather from what you have written, you don't really know much about conservatives.

This was directed toward Blake regarding his post, not Walt. Sorry for the confusion.

Re:thoughtful conservatives

No offense, of course, but this is one of the most biased, nasty, condescending and hurtful rants I've ever read about conservatism. Fang Face is just silly. You usually have more sense than to insult the members of your profession who think differently than you. Very broad brush, with extremely thick, gooey paint, leaded with contempt.

Re:thoughtful conservatives

Nbruce, I don't see where Fang Face is involved in this discussion. Am I missing something?

Syndicate content