by Smitty

Read it all, but emphasis here:

Religion for intellectuals. Normally, I would have said number three was “reforming the academy,” but I believe this is where the fight for the academy is centered. Recently, a number of books by secular intellectuals have noted the disaster that is postmodern relativism—the nihilist philosophy that has corrupted and gutted Western liberal education. Education’s End, by Anthony T. Kronman, Why We Should Call Ourselves Christians, by Marcello Pera, and What Ever Happened to Modernism?, by Gabriel Josipovici, come to mind. All lament the abandonment of our commitment to the Great Conversation—the intellectual’s belief that the creative tension of the uniquely brilliant Western literary and philosophical canon can lead us in the direction of moral truth.

But the authors cannot fully grasp the nettle of the solution. Many assume that the Great Conversation depended on the sort of open mind only secularism can provide. As Kronman puts it: “Every religion insists, at the end of the day, that there is only one right answer to the question of life’s meaning,” thus rendering the pluralism of the Great Conversation impossible. I would contend the opposite: only the existence of a God in whose image we are created can support the notion of moral truth at all. It was always Judeo-Christianity, and that alone, that made the Great Conversation possible. Pera understands this intellectually, but cannot really plunk for faith. And therein lies the problem. The triumph of science, the comfort of Western life, and a sophisticated elite virulently hostile to religion have all contributed to an intellectual atmosphere of unbelief—a sense that atheism should be the default mode of reasonable, thinking people. That is a mere prejudice and needs to be answered in the culture, not with Bible-thumping literalism and small-minded judgmentalism—nor with banal happy-talk optimism—but by sound argument made publicly, unabashedly, and without fear. John Adams and the other Founders were right about this: an irreligious people cannot be free. Liberty lives in the palace of moral truth, and you can’t build that palace on the empty air.

via Instapundit

It’s called “Highest Responsibility“:

Joe Scarborough and Bill Kristol agree that the debate Monday night did nothing to alter the trajectory of the race, even while Jonathan Chait disgraces himself with a public tantrum over the decisive trend toward Romney that his ideogical blinders prevent him from seeing.

Via Sister Toldjah, the Best Romney Ad Yet:

Democrats: So Stupid They Can’t Spell Their Own Slogan!

. . . yeah, it’s the legitimate criticism:

If Tuesday night’s presidential debate proved nothing else, it demonstrated one thing: CNN’s Candy Crowley is definitely not an “uncommitted voter.” The moderator’s handling of the town-hall debate at Hofstra University was heavy-handed and one-sided throughout, not merely giving more time to President Obama, but repeatedly cutting off Mitt Romney when the Republican attempted to counter accusations from the president. . . .

That’s from my American Spectator column, and I’m glad Smitty was kind enough to do a roundup of Benghazi-related debate reaction, because I was up until the pre-dawn hours this morning, and woke up about 10 a.m. too frazzled to think about it.

John Nolte at Breitbart.com called Crowley’s performance “a scandal; a total and complete media scandal . . . Absolutely disgraceful.” Matthew Sheffield of Newsbusters said Crowley “disgraced herself . . . showing why many Americans were rightfully suspicious of her ability to moderate a presidential debate fairly.” Donald Douglas at American Power called it “the worst debate moderation in presidential debate history.”

Not one of them felt it necessary to point out that Candy Crowley is fat, and I’m happy for that, because too many people resort to such cheap insults when they’re angry, and it hurts the feelings of fat people everywhere. This kind of cruelty toward BBWs and plumpers also bothers “chubby chasers” like Dan Collins, whose appreciation of Rubenesque ladies is so often misunderstood.

This probably explains why Dan’s colleague Bruce McQuain at Conservative Commune tactfully avoided any reference to Ms. Crowley’s extra pounds when criticizing her moderation of the debate. Dan himself hasn’t, um, weighed in yet, perhaps because he was so traumatized by seeing his favorite journalist universally excoriated by the blogosphere. Paul Ryan also wisely refrained from making fat jokes on “Good Morning America”:

 “Look, growing the economy through energy, through better job training programs, for getting people back to work, getting the deficit – cutting the deficit, capping spending, getting small businesses growing again. This is our specific five-point plan. These are bipartisan ideas that have worked before. We’re going to do them again. And the specific ideas on how we get off the path that we are on right now, to get this economy growing and creating jobs, and that’s what people saw. They saw a leader with a proven track record of bringing people together, getting things done, creating jobs. And that is exactly why I think Mitt Romney, again, won this debate.”

Attaboy, Paul! Stay focused on the important issues that matter to Americans, including those ladies with “more to love,” many of whom are in fact staunchly Republican. And c’mon, guys, admit it: You don’t mind a gal with more cushion for the pushin’.

Wimpy liberal beta males are usually too insecure to admit their admiration for the plus-size ladies, but genuine red-blooded American guys are unintimidated. So none of us patriotic conservative fellows had a problem with Candy’s deluxe figure, but most of us did have a problem with this:

Crowley Interrupts Romney 28 Times, Obama Just 9

Shut your big fat mouth, Candy. And go make us a sammich.