A Few Items
|
Does the SEO company you're considering have references and testimonials from their clients? Can you contact the people providing testimonials to ask about their experiences using the seo Company? Considering each of these aspects before selecting an SEO company will help you choose a reputable company that will give you the results you need. |
|
(1) With Terri Schiavo's passing, I for one would not mind refocusing our attention elsewhere. I realize some conservatives may say, "But Matt, that's just what all those nefarious libertarians want us to do!" Perhaps so, but for the purposes of this blog, I can safely say that those still arguing the case are pretty set in their ways and at this point are just talking past each other (on both sides). I think certain questions, like the origins of the right to die, are worth discussing -- but the technicalities of the Schiavo situation, like whether or not she was denied due process, really are irrelevant at this juncture.
(2) I get aggrevated when it is assumed conservatives are stupid or uneducated. It especially bothers me when religious conservatives are all assumed to be fundamentalist followers of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. I realize certain "theocons" have said things that are embarassing, like the quotes from anti-evolution activists Marc likes to post that decry the assault on their values by "educated" and "intelligent" people. I admit it, that stuff looks bad! But its really a cheap shot to distinguish one's position in contrast to those types of people and create a false dichotomy between reasonable people on one hand and religious zealots on the other.
(3) The easy thing to do is point to the worst excesses of your supposed opponents -- like something Jerry Falwell says -- and build your case around that. I admit it works well -- setting up a straw man is a great debate tool. If I were debating in a setting where rhetoric and clever phrases scored points, I would do it too. Pointing to the Falwells of the world is great on Crossfire. But I, foolishly perhaps, would like to get to the core of issues on Child of Reagan. To me this means not seizing on a stray comment extraneous to the central point of a post or, as mentioned, grilling religious zealots when plenty of thoughtful religious conservatives (or religious people of any political stripe) are out there to engage. Why point out what an anti-evolution activist said when there is an entire magazine, First Things, dedicated to thoughtfully engaging the intersection of religion and society/politics/etc?
(4) The thing I find most ironic in all of this is that if those grilling the zealots had ANY knowledge of the literature on the causes of religious fundamentalism (and here, I mean fundamentalism especially to include Christian fundamentalism) I think their approach to handling these people would be different. Religious fundamentalism is in many ways a distinctly modern invention. Christian "fundamentalism" was a product of the early 20th century, a reaction to very specific developments happening at that time. Fundamentalism, of course, is still with us -- the march of Reason seems not to have made it to these folks. Simply put, a secularism just as extreme as the religious zealotry some like to inveigh against will only exacerbate religious fundamentalism. I am fairly certain religion will be with us for the forseeable future -- the question is how thoughtfully to incorporate religious views into the public discourse. The answer is not to dismiss religious views and say they are not accessible to all and thus not on par with such wonderful ideologies as feminism, etc. By telling religious people they must strip themselves of their faith to enter the public square, fundamentalism is only bound to become more prominent. For those looking for reading material, I suggest starting with Adam Seligman's Modernity's Wager.
(5) Please do not respond to this post with "But I never said that..." I wasn't responding to anyone in particular, but rather merely trying to address certain issues that concern me. They were not sparked by any certain post or any certain blogger (I was using the example of Marc posting the crazy comments of a "zealot" only as an illustration -- it was not the cause of my post). I just have gotten some vibes of late and wanted to get some of these things out in the Again, please do not reply to this with furious claims of not saying something I mentioned in this post. However, if the shoe fits...
(2) I get aggrevated when it is assumed conservatives are stupid or uneducated. It especially bothers me when religious conservatives are all assumed to be fundamentalist followers of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. I realize certain "theocons" have said things that are embarassing, like the quotes from anti-evolution activists Marc likes to post that decry the assault on their values by "educated" and "intelligent" people. I admit it, that stuff looks bad! But its really a cheap shot to distinguish one's position in contrast to those types of people and create a false dichotomy between reasonable people on one hand and religious zealots on the other.
(3) The easy thing to do is point to the worst excesses of your supposed opponents -- like something Jerry Falwell says -- and build your case around that. I admit it works well -- setting up a straw man is a great debate tool. If I were debating in a setting where rhetoric and clever phrases scored points, I would do it too. Pointing to the Falwells of the world is great on Crossfire. But I, foolishly perhaps, would like to get to the core of issues on Child of Reagan. To me this means not seizing on a stray comment extraneous to the central point of a post or, as mentioned, grilling religious zealots when plenty of thoughtful religious conservatives (or religious people of any political stripe) are out there to engage. Why point out what an anti-evolution activist said when there is an entire magazine, First Things, dedicated to thoughtfully engaging the intersection of religion and society/politics/etc?
(4) The thing I find most ironic in all of this is that if those grilling the zealots had ANY knowledge of the literature on the causes of religious fundamentalism (and here, I mean fundamentalism especially to include Christian fundamentalism) I think their approach to handling these people would be different. Religious fundamentalism is in many ways a distinctly modern invention. Christian "fundamentalism" was a product of the early 20th century, a reaction to very specific developments happening at that time. Fundamentalism, of course, is still with us -- the march of Reason seems not to have made it to these folks. Simply put, a secularism just as extreme as the religious zealotry some like to inveigh against will only exacerbate religious fundamentalism. I am fairly certain religion will be with us for the forseeable future -- the question is how thoughtfully to incorporate religious views into the public discourse. The answer is not to dismiss religious views and say they are not accessible to all and thus not on par with such wonderful ideologies as feminism, etc. By telling religious people they must strip themselves of their faith to enter the public square, fundamentalism is only bound to become more prominent. For those looking for reading material, I suggest starting with Adam Seligman's Modernity's Wager.
(5) Please do not respond to this post with "But I never said that..." I wasn't responding to anyone in particular, but rather merely trying to address certain issues that concern me. They were not sparked by any certain post or any certain blogger (I was using the example of Marc posting the crazy comments of a "zealot" only as an illustration -- it was not the cause of my post). I just have gotten some vibes of late and wanted to get some of these things out in the Again, please do not reply to this with furious claims of not saying something I mentioned in this post. However, if the shoe fits...

2 Comments:
Well said. This is an important debate that will become more crucial as the years pass.
Agreed, on both sides of the fence. If we could just ignore the people on the extremes and agree to disagree for a little while longer on abortion, I think we could fix this country right good.
Isn't it amazing how our media works directly in opposition to that goal? Liberal or conservative, they both spend all of their prime-time hours trying to make conflicts out to be unresolvable intrinsic differences between right and left. If we could get them all to shut up for a bit, maybe Joe Sixpack wouldn't feel like he had to hate "the other guys."
Post a Comment
<< Home