It's taken me a long time to get into American Politics. Let me explain why.
I'm a blind republican. No, not literally, but figuratively. My entire family is republican, very strong republicans, very clueless republicans. They felt very strongly about these things, but could never explain to me why the believed them and, through osmosis, i became just the same. I was, notice *was*, much the same until Idiscovered STR.org, their podcast, and heard Hugh Hewitt speak on their show about Mitt Romney. I was hooked and have been listening to Hugh Hewitt every since.
So, here I am, a newly seeing centerist republican who's loving this new world that I've been shown.
Alright, enough introduction.
I'm listening to Hugh Hewitt's show right now on News Talk 870 KRLA online feed and am loving the sound effects over the speech that's playing. I wish I would have paid attention who was talking, but this is hilarious. Bravo Hugh. Your sound effects mixer is a genius and i'm rolling off my chair right now in laughter.
I would like to comment today about the debate between Mark Roberts and Christopher Hitchens, and if you haven't read Marks post on the debates, you really should. Though one could argue that the problems that Mark brings up about Mr. Hitchens book are minor, it should be noted that these are not the only mistakes in the book. In fact, this is just a little
section of the book and there are already 3 very minor when looked at alone, but very important when looked at
together. These are mistakes, as Mark points out, that would prevent me, a college student, from getting a good grade on such a paper. In fact, with a professor that has any sort of standard as befitting a higher learning institution, that section of writing wouldn't be worth a C mainly because the mistakes are so... careless, i think is the right word.
Beyond that the very title of Hitchens book, "God is not Great", is misleading. I would welcome someone who could explain how the Bible not being inerant having anything to do about the greatness of God? It seems to me that you have a man who's saying, "Look! It's false, but if it were true it would be false, but since it isn't true it must be false!" without properly defending, or even defining his position. Now, I could be wrong, I haven't yet read it and plan to during a long trip that I have comming up at the end of the month, so please, don't browbeat me, but I would like a honest answer from someone, on either side, who has read the book about whether or not, or rather, HOW Hitchens connects these mistakes to the general theme of his book, or rather, to the Title of his book.
It's been a pleasure. I hope you've enjoyed this blog. I don't know how often I'll update it, but I'll shoot for every couple days, hopefully every day but I'm not holding my breath.
On, and i know I often forget to capitalize my "i"'s when talking. It's a casualty of Microsoft Word and their damnable self-correct feature.
Here by the grace of God go I,
NightWatchman