bar·bar·i·an (bär-bâr-n)
n.
1. A member of a people considered by those of another nation or group to have a primitive civilization.
2. A fierce, brutal, or cruel person.
3. An insensitive, uncultured person; a boor.
Okay, I felt I needed to link to at least one of
these. Not that I need a reason, but she's definitely among my favorite bloggers right now (and not just because she's the only of my actual friends who has managed to continue blogging, but also because it's actually
quite good
quite often). Also I really like what Thursday equals.
Anyway, Linda Harvey of Mission America (no, I had never heard of her before; yes, from what I can tell she is very very Christian; no, I don't think she realizes that 'Mission America' is probably too broad a title for a very very Christian organization) is deserving of a W Th F? Though Linda's not always wrong. She says, for example, that:
"Parents want something other than barbarians living down the street."
It's true. So, quick message to parents: read the above definition for the word 'barbarians' (especially 2. and 3.), and then, whatever you do, don't buy a house down the street from Linda Harvey.
Too easy?
Okay, so the other reason I decided to mention this here, instead of
there...
I recently wrote
my first ever letter to an editor, in this case the editor(s) of
Salon.com. In their new feature,
"Ask a Wingnut", they ask a wingnut questions. The wingnut is an anonymous former Bush official who goes by the name Glenallen Walken, a joyous reference to a West Wing character played by the great John Goodman.
He wrote, most-recently, about
gay marriage. It's a topic I have a lot of thoughts about, and I'm always rearing for a good debate, so with a great furvor I began feverishly researching, rebutting, and churning out a letter which I'm actually pretty proud of.
The only problem is that, after I had edited the letter down to under 2000 words (twice the limit on Salon) so that I could post it in
two parts, after the furvor died down and the sobriety of having clicked "Submit" set in, I realized that I was arguing into a void. Not just because I won't get a response, but also because Mr. Walken's article is not actually terribly good. So not just a void, a mediocre, somewhat vacuous void. Years ago, during a long discussion with my best friend, we both lamented the fact that there are no genuinely good, interesting, cohesive conservative arguments against gay marriage (that is to say, lamented that there are arguments against without there being any good ones). Recently, I searched around the internet (yes,
the internet) for such an article, a good, cohesive argument, and to no avail. Some think there is not such argument, I think there might be; the one I responded to isn't it.
It was a mildly disappointing realization, though ultimately it was not a total waste of my time (I learned, for example, a bit about the intricacies of New Mexico Anti-Discrimination Law). Wingnut Walken isn't a barbarian, really, he's just a blowhard. Still, my realization leads me to this question, even though I kinda already know the answer:
When Linda Harvey speaks, why do we listen?
