Touchstone Magazine has notified me (and certainly Paul, too) that its Jan/Feb 2006 issue is now available online, and has further offered encouragement to link to it. There's a bunch of good reading in it, including our own Paul Cella's review of Thomas Woods' How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. Annually this number of the magazine puts a special focus on pro-life issues, and I am glad to have been a part of it twice, in this case offering a personal reflection called "A Stone for Shmuel." The title refers to this little fellow, who appeared in the magazine but is absent from the online version:
Comments (15)
An excellent and very successful piece, Bill. I don't know if you revised it from the original blog version, but this one flows quite seamlessly and is, if possible, even better. The idea that murdering infants is okay sometimes is a theme that ties together the bus bomber and the abortion clinic. And the postmodern idea that things are what we say they are and that we are not answerable to a morality outside ourselves will allow over-intellectualized Westerners (and the girls they deceive in the abortion clinic) to excuse such acts, one way or another.
Posted by Lydia | December 30, 2007 4:10 PM
Appreciate it, Lydia. I did some editing, they suggested some more..you know how it goes. But not much overall.
I also like Paul's review, though I gave him a hard time about it way back when. Unjustly, I'm afraid.
Posted by William Luse | December 30, 2007 10:54 PM
Heh. TSO gave me a harder time about it, in the Letters section: but his argument was funny enough to dull its edge.
Posted by Paul J Cella | December 31, 2007 8:36 AM
I wish he'd show up here more. I guess we don't provide him with enough fodder for humor.
Posted by William Luse | December 31, 2007 5:16 PM
in the Letters section: but his argument was funny enough to dull its edge.
Since I don't have nearly the god-like intelligence Paul is gifted with, I wrote that with no intention of offering it as an in-print rebuttal. But Bill, whose intellect I respect, thought it was strong enough to send as a letter to the editor. So you have Mr. Luse to blame for my giving you a hard time. So if you're laughing at me, you're laughing at Luse too and that's something I can certainly live with.
Posted by TSO | December 31, 2007 6:46 PM
I think all he meant was that you have a good sense of humor (most of the time, apparently).
And how do I end up getting blamed for your letter? You wrote it. I offered encouragement (not entirely misplaced, it seems, since Touchstone published it). Now I'm in trouble with Paul. Damn, this is what I get for being helpful. No good deed...
But Bill, whose intellect I respect... Paul, this does not mean what it sounds like, I swear. Sometimes when he says things they come out wrong. He's good at heart.
Posted by William Luse | December 31, 2007 10:12 PM
Bill, no way I would have dragged you into it except you dragged me into it in the first place by emailing me and telling me I was being talked about! That said, I do wish WWWtW allowed deleting comments, as I'd be deleting mine right quick.
Posted by TSO | December 31, 2007 11:25 PM
By the way, for the record, Paul is an extremely bright guy and by "But Bill, whose intellect I respect... I was not impugning Paul's intelligence but my own.
Posted by TSO | December 31, 2007 11:28 PM
See, Paul? I told you.
Though I'm still trying to figure out how to take this line:So if you're laughing at me, you're laughing at Luse too and that's something I can certainly live with. He can, can he? I'm not sure I'm comfortable living with his ability to live with someone's laughing at me who's really laughing at him.
Posted by William Luse | December 31, 2007 11:37 PM
I'm laughing that someone endorsing a laughable argument can assume the high ground so easily.
Posted by TSO | January 1, 2008 12:23 AM
That accusation is true only if its premise - that the argument was laughable - is also true. So I've painted myself into the corner of having to maintain that not only was it not laughable, but so cogent as to nearly make me cry.
Taking the high ground is easy, especially if you're lowdown at heart. Happens all the time and gets easier with practice.
Btw, how many St. Pauli darks did you have while posting all this? I'm still drinking my old man's Christmas egg nog, although egg is not the operative ingredient.
Posted by William Luse | January 1, 2008 5:07 AM
Something tells me that the old firewater played a role in those last few comments. Bill, you were still drinking egg nog at 5am? Impressive.
For the record, TSO's letter to Touchstone critiquing my review was funny, not in the sense of "ridiculous" or "absurd," much less "stupid"; it was funny in the Chestertonian sense of a well-conceived argument, delivered cleverly and with an amusing twist of rhetoric.
The former sort of funny may be seen in that "god-like intelligence" remark.
Happy New Year to everyone!
Posted by Paul J Cella | January 1, 2008 9:31 AM
See TS? I told you.
Posted by William Luse | January 1, 2008 3:18 PM
Oy...sorry Paul & Bill. I completely misread that one obviously. I'll go slink off somewhere and drink no firewater until Friday - and then refrain from commenting on blogs while imbibing. Thank God for alcohol, else we'd have nothing to blame things on!? :-)
Posted by TSO | January 2, 2008 8:36 AM
refrain from commenting on blogs while imbibing
That's not a promise I'll hold you to, and would be disappointed if you kept it.
But don't you think this praise is a little excessive? it was funny in the Chestertonian sense of a well-conceived argument, delivered cleverly and with an amusing twist of rhetoric.
He's never said that about me.
Posted by William Luse | January 2, 2008 6:52 PM