Gould 0738 wrote:

Ah, the Democratic party line. You guys don't have one single stance or
issue that sells...so, instead, you sell sleaze. There's not much
difference between the National Enquirer and the NY or LA Times these days.
I wouldn't even wipe my ass with a one of 'em.

Well there ya go. Any newspaper without a strong, conservative bias is
immediately relegated to National Inquirer status......
Since you wouldn't use one of those papers as TP, it's safe to assume you don't
read them, either.

Do you insulate your philosophy from critique because you are not confident it
will withstand scrutiny?

Enlightened people welcome philosophical critique. Testing ideas against one
another validates the better ones and forces revision of the weak. For all
except those who are certain they already know all they could ever hope to know
about the truth *before* they set out to find it, this is a good thing.
Separates the genuine thinkers from the parrots.


I used to read the National Review when Bill Buckley was more involved
in it, but for the last few years, with ol' William F. in
semi-retirement, the quality of thought and writing there has
deteriorated. Buckley often infuriated me, but he was a good read.

I read the WSJ every day. Good financial reporting and top-notch feature
stories, and I almost always read those, but the editorial page is so
shrill in its conservative extremism, it is almost a parody of itself,
sort of like a Mel Brooks' movie.