3 Very Quick Things for Friday Night

1. Right now, in St. Francisville, Louisiana, the Walker Percy Weekend is kicking off. I’m not there. 😦

But I can’t really complain because, 1) I’m just back from five days with my family on the Texas Gulf Coast (which is why blogging has been a little slow here) and 2) I’m drinking a bourbon, neat, and reading The Last Gentleman.

I think that I’ll do my own Walker Percy Fest over the next week, since I’ve had a couple of Percy-related ideas for posts kicking around in my head for a while. Percy, of course, is a favorite of the Catholic Right and, of course, I read him a little differently than they do. If you want a taste for how the next week will go, here’s a post I did about a year ago on his famous essay on bourbon: “Bourbon, Bad and Good

2. A Letters to the Catholic Right contest! Which is the worst sentence Crisis Magazine has published in the past two weeks?

Contender 1, from Michael J. Healy’s “Marrying Your Porn-Laden Computer?”:

Healy, in an article that has to break some record for strawmen per word, is talking about a man who (yeah, yeah) is claiming a right to marry his computer. He writes:

“His arguments are the familiar ones for the subjectivist definition of marriage, i.e., that marriage has no other nature than the one I as private individual assign to it.”

Contender 2, from Rachel Lu’s “Is the Left Waging a War on Religion?”:

Lu, responding to Peter Beinart’s argument that, no, the left is not waging a war on religion, takes special exception to his use of John Kerry and Barack Obama as examples of religious politicians from the left.

She writes: “Most serious Christians I know regard these men’s public professions of faith as crass opportunism.”

Which is worse? Healy’s strawman or Lu’s presumption to speak for “serious Christians”? Tough call.

3. Cheers, Wisconsin! Or, I guess, On Wisconsin!


2 thoughts on “3 Very Quick Things for Friday Night

  1. Hmm, tough one on #2. I lean toward Healy because of his use of “subjectivist” and “private individual” (as opposed to a “public individual”?) in the same sentence, but it is hard to vote against such a naked use of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. Still, my vote is for Healy because, in addition to being a dumb thought, it is a confusing, poorly written sentence.

    • Yeah, Lu’s sentence really annoyed me, but with the two side-by-side I think Healy’s got it in the bag. You’re right–it is really poorly written, on top of everything.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s