Goodenough Gismo

  • Gismo39
    This is the classic children's book, Goodenough Gismo, by Richmond I. Kelsey, published in 1948. Nearly unavailable in libraries and the collector's market, it is posted here with love as an "orphan work" so that it may be seen and appreciated -- and perhaps even republished, as it deserves to be. After you read this book, it won't surprise you to learn that Richmond Irwin Kelsey (1905-1987) was an accomplished artist, or that as Dick Kelsey, he was one of the great Disney art directors, breaking your heart with "Pinocchio," "Dumbo," and "Bambi."

  • 74%How Addicted to Blogging Are You?

  • Google

Blogs I love and/or learn from

« Rallying Cry | Main | Mature »



I don't know, amba. it seems like making a big thing out of something very simple. Sorta how the Dems want to package their *Values* to become more presentable to , well, anyone who thinks they don't have any.

It was too exhausting to try to get past all that shrink wrap, as you call it.

And the fellas that sign their names w/ umpteen initials of credentials? Not impressed. Eagles? Downright annoying to me.

I prefer agressive to progressive. Bernie Sanders has been in our congress for ever and where has he really gotten us? He's a Progressive. I see he's combing his hair now, must be getting cleaned up a bit in case he has to take on Brian Dubie. That man is an Agressive Conservative... he sent cows to Cuba!!


Although a fair number of their positions represent a softening of conservatism, and thus a move to the center, I am still turned off.

It seems to me that they seek to simultaneously extol both the economy AND tradition. While that can be done, I must admit that tradition and a strict focus on money are not good values, IMO.

Tradition is presently a crutch for people unable or unwilling to go further. It does provide benefits but at a steep cost of myopia and division. I also think a serious problem with this society is making money the highest good. It is certainly vital to well-being, but having a strong economy is not a good in-and-of-itself. It is only good in the sense that that it facilitates other goods. I consider a truly blissful moral and creative flourishing to be the highest good: one free of traditional strictures. (Not meaning libertine, but people who refrain from vice because of virtue's intrinsic good, not because they fear the wrath of the Lord.)

IOW, I am truly a radical centrist partisan.


Yeah, Adam, I feel pretty much the same way, as maybe you could tell from the undertone of that post. Yet, I have to admit that a lot of Modern Orthodox Jews do a pretty good job of living in both worlds at once. Not everybody wants to ad-lib their moral and spiritual life (albeit based on deep universal principles) the way we do. Some people prefer to have it laid clearly out for them because of the connection to the past, the community life, and the sense of an authority that they feel they can trust more than they can trust themselves. (Religion is full of injunctions not to trust yourself, at least not until you're a seasoned practitioner. They take that too far, but it does have a point: we do tend to tell ourselves what we like to hear.) A lot of people are choosing to live like that nowadays, they're not going to be persuaded that "spiritual nomadism" is more adaptive, more native to the time we live in, so the question is, can they get along? Can they give up the whole "My God is the real God" game? It wold be a miracle, if they could.


Also, in fairness to Piper, he does say the economy does NOT come first. Maybe a close second, but not first. Look again.


Bam, hammer to nail, amba!
I believe what Adam says about this economy perception, but it is so much deeper. It is that individuals measure themselves w/ the yardstick of power and $$$$. I think I like that symbol because I really never get to touch much of my $$$$, in one had and out the other...

It would seem that the politicians would want to do what is best for this country and try very hard to work to gether. The only thing I see happening is the tearing apart, willfully, in hopes to make each side look bad. Now, how the hell does that help the common folk-w/or without a God?

Quite personally, it doesn't bother me if someone doesn't believe as I, someone who decides to build materially as opposed to spiritually, but mocking and preaching (too loud :)) really has the opposite desired effect.


Where in all of this are the center left moderates? Frankly from my scan of your article they sound sorta to the right of moderate in my book...

I agree with Adam in that the pursuit of the almighty dollar as the sole measure of value and worth in our society is a huge problem.

I think that's one of the reasons that I attempt to suggest cost-benefit analyses in many of my arguments - if people saw the hidden costs inherent in some decisions, such as polluting power plants, they might realize how short-sighted current policies are.

In addition, if one could quantify some of those hidden costs and apply them to the cause of the problem, then better social alternatives would become more economically viable. If power plants were charged taxes based on the estimated cost of their environmental impact, then wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro power would become far more competitive.

Another prime example is marijuana legalization - currently it is costing the taxpayers a fortune in legal and jail costs to go after the quite large and primarily law-abiding community who use it. If instead, they started producing it legally and taxed it heavily, they would reverse this cost and make it into a huge revenue stream, both for taxes and for farmers. In addition, it would weaken illegal drug distributors by removing one of their primary product lines and allow drug enforcement to crack down harder on the much smaller (and far more dangerous) set of harder drugs.

A sidenote on the marijuana issue is that hemp, an extremely versatile and valuable product, would once more become allowed in the US. For some strange reason, the government seems to think hemp, which has a THC concentration thousands of times lower than it's relative marijuana, will somehow increase drug usage. I vaguely recall something about competing product lines using the marijuana issue to get the ban put into place decades ago.


Funny, I think my first reaction was largely based on the absence of the center-left, but as I read it again, I would much rather vote for these guys than the current batch. At least they're thinking and being creative.

But as Sleipner points out, it would definitely require a center-left balance. I guess I view the left--in its ideal form--as being open, warm, inclusive, and forward-looking. And I view the right as being cautious, pragmatic, and realist. A healthy society needs a bit of both.

About the tradition thing, I don't think it can last in the modern world. I don't see how people who hold in their gut warring ideologies can truly get along. There could be polite tolerance, but you could never have a "brotherhood of all mankind" if when people go home they admit, however sheepishly, that yes for instance "the Christians are, when push-comes-to-shove, idolaters" or "well yes, the jews missed the theological boat and refuse to recongize their own messiah." At some point, people are going to have to surrender it all and let spirit speak for itself. I mean, if you were God, and you were conversing with widely disparate peoples with a great deal of pre-modern ignorance, are you going to tell them the straight dope, will you even tell them the same thing?

Of course not.
They were told what they needed to hear, if they were told anything at all.


But I admit that there can be much beauty and comfort in tradition, and that it can provide a framework for spiritual practice.

I guess what I really mean is when people take their theology seriously and literally. I feel that traditional practioners can and should deeply enjoy their tradition, but that they ought to approach the tradition's understanding as partial and provisional.

If they could do that, then it could be a very good thing. Ritual can be very meaningful. Then practioners of different religions would be no more different than people who prefer particular shades of color.


A lot of people are choosing to live like that nowadays, they're not going to be persuaded that "spiritual nomadism" is more adaptive, more native to the time we live in, . . .

There you go again with your pessimism, Amba! :) I think most religious people are moderates; I don't think most really deep down they believe all of it; I think plurality and diversity really have seeped into our collective bloodstreams at least a little in America; so in my view it's a question of baby steps. Encourage that loosening, provide a way for them to practice their faith less rigidly--you know the partial and provisional line. True, there's this loony upsurge right know, but I believe it's "in its last throes":) I've seen leading evangelicals plead ignorance vis-a-vis the fate of non-believers on Larry King Live, so there's hope.

I think the crucial challenge is to make religion a deep emotional experience without the fundamentalism--I think the emotional experience is what is spearheading the evangelical movement and weakening the mainline. I think the mainline is "mushy moderate" while it's up to us to provide a more "radical centrist" alternative. You could still be swept up in "missionary" zeal if you thought your mission was to provide the love of God to all whom you met, to be the hands and feet of God, as they say, without being out to "save" everyone.

Sorry for going on and on, Amba. I think too much about these topics so that I have ready-made essays on mental file.


The problem is it's much easier for most humans to reach a "deep emotional level" in anything if they have no reservations, no qualms, no doubts, no questioning.

Thus the ascendancy of fundamentalism today - our society is full of unanswerable questions and complications that are more than many can handle. They want a simple, unquestioning and unquestionable philosophy that they can dedicate their entire being to that helps cancel out some of the uncertainties of daily life.

Work getting on your nerves? Be happy knowing that Jesus loves you. It really is a form of brainwashing - sort of like confessional. You can wash the guilt, the doubts, the worries, right out of your brain and into the offering basket.

Tom Strong


Do you have a blog? Because frankly, if you don't you better get one. I would certainly read it.


I guess what I'm trying to enunciate is a way for people to feel a deep security, a deep comfort, and to even practice it within a tradition without having to internalize the more deleterious aspects.

I suspect I might differ from you, Sleipner, in that I feel it is healthy, or at least not necessarily bad, to choose the more happiness-inducing option when the data is insufficient, as long as one recognizes one is doing so. Meaning, I think it is healthy to believe in a higher benevolent reality because the data is mixed, and with sufficient metaphysical dexterity one can reconcile this with the apparent evil in the world.

I believe this because I think one's actions and feelings are a reflection of one's metaphysics to some extent.

If you believe in a cruel God, some cruelty will slip into your feelings. If you are unsure, you can certainly be good, but there is a limit beyond which one cannot pass. If you seek however to be the living embodiment of peace and compassion, I think believing in a some benevolent higher reality is almost required. Look at Gandhi and Martin Luther King for instance.

I think if people can root themselves in the experience of divine benevolence, they will feel at ease and secure and the crust of theological falsehoods will crumble off their being.

I believe that it is precisely this lack of direct personal experience that forces people to rely on texts and traditions. The more mature one is spiritually, the less tied down one is.

There is also the peculiar western problem that religion is associated with belief, whereas in the east it is associated with practice. The emphasis on belief, especially within Christianity, fosters mental rigidity and spiritual laziness.

I am fond of quoting Buddha's line that each person is her own savior, no one can do it for another. Christianity is all about salvation by faith alone which I think was given a big boost by Martin Luther's obsessive fear that he was going to hell. Imagine if people believed their own spiritual maturity required discipline and the cultivation of compassion. (Go Buddha!)

So really, at base, we're really discussing the spiritual maturity of humanity. We may be technologically sosphicated but morally and metaphysically we have a ways to go.


Thanks Tom! I've thought about it, but I am not yet prepared to invest the time in it to make it a good one. I'd like to, but I know I should be studying instead.


You seem to be a wonderfully mature and thoughtful writer, Adam, (Amba too, of course) far more deep and insightful than I will ever aspire to be.

I would suggest that perhaps one of the biggest reasons why secularism is on the rise in Western civilizations is precisely due to the dominance of religion and its seemingly unbreakable stranglehold on belief.

Christianity is a very external religion, for the most part it requires very little personal analysis, introspection, and growth. Basically all you really have to do is believe in the big JC and pretend to be really sorry for your mistakes and you win the prize.

Buddhism and many Eastern religions (though I'm far from well-read on them) seem to be more about personal growth and enlightenment. They focus more on metaphysical and spiritual ideals rather than on worldly issues, so there is less within them to be disproven or contradicted by modern science and culture.

So now that much of Christianity is (imho) made anachronistic or obsolete by the modern world, people don't have many spiritual alternatives. Some people make up their own version of spirituality. Others seek the Eastern religions. Some attempt, with varying degrees of success, to reconcile Christianity with modern science and culture. Still others reject a few hundred years of advances and dig into the trenches of fundamentalism.

I believe that within the human psyche, or soul if you must, there is a need to have a purpose for our lives. We seek something greater than ourselves that is capable of explaining all that we cannot personally fathom.

Unfortunately, there is no easy solution to this need, as most of the candidates to fill that void were created centuries ago in a different world, and our world is not well suited for mystical introspection. Would-be prophets and mystics are almost always drowned out by the legions of profiteers, replacing the message of mysticism with cynicism.


Oh Sleipner, you are at least as good a writer as I am. As for the "insight" I've been blessed to have a few good mentors. Most of my thought is an elaboration on what I've learned from them or read on my own. Without that foundation, I'd have a difficult time. I think part of the technological success of the West has derived from its religions being more materially oriented, and indeed less sophisicated. I think the East just has more sophisticated and elaborate metaphysics, due to their societies' inward and spiritual turn.

I think you're right that the rise in secularism is due to society's basically having outgrown their religion to some extent. And in many ways I think this is a good thing. A way for society to purge itself of its superstitions so that it can look upon metaphysical issues with clear eyes. But as you likely guessed, I am not convinced by philosophical "naturalism" either. There are two many questions that seem to indicate that something else is going on: there seems to be no clear reason why a piece of matter, no matter how intricately it is connected, should have feelings or at least believe it has free will. There is also the question of the source of physical laws, as I mentioned in another post. And it seems disingenuous to claim that all those who have had spiritual experiences throughout history have merely been delusional. Why after all, should a mere lump of flesh crave for meaning, and write symphonies and plays. Maybe it all is just a Darwinian afterglow, but when you have such a experience it just doesn't seem right to say--well, there's that damn darwinian afterglow again.

But at the same time, the secularist in me is disturbed by this possibility--thinking, damn't, I thought we just dispatched of all that superstition?

My resolution to that is to make the supposition that whatever is going on, if something is indeed going on, if it is not impersonal, is that it is at least as good as the most moral among us--certainly not some crazed doctrinal belief-checker. And after all, most mystics have claimed that it is ALL GOOD, so in the end, it would be a benefit.

To summarize a recent comment here: the world would be a better place if secularists could gradually get acclimated to the idea that the existence of the divine might not be bad thing, and the religious could recognize the opposite. As I see it now, it seems to be a war between those who want God to exist and those who don't. But the whole race might need to have a period of individual and collective stillness where they are at peace either way, where all fear and anxiety evaporates before the light of reason.


Unfortunately, there is no easy solution to this need, as most of the candidates to fill that void were created centuries ago in a different world, and our world is not well suited for mystical introspection. Would-be prophets and mystics are almost always drowned out by the legions of profiteers, replacing the message of mysticism with cynicism.

I have hope Sleipner; I think valid alternatives are emerging: people are hungry for something to fill the void and eventually the "system" which produces the deepest spiritual fulfillment will attract the most adherents. And in my Pollyanna-ish way, I believe the way of life that maximizes spiritual fulfillment is likely to be the one closest to the truth.

Right now though, the world is in metaphysical tumult, but when the dust settles I think a gradual consensus will emerge. In the mean time, Amba will be as the yogini in meditation preparing for that time :)


If we have a benevolent master of the Universe... who only gives us love and compassion (which i believe we do have) what do you make of man's freedom of choice in all of this and natural consequences for actions taken?

Don't we, in a sense, reap what we sow by our given freedom?


Hmm...I never thought of He-Man as being particularly benevolent...

The thing that gets me Karen is that if He wanted to give us the "choice" to be good or bad, how come many or most people programmed genetically to LIKE a lot of those things he labelled bad? Why is greed and lust and power so attractive to people who are supposedly "created in his image?"

Just consider how many philosophical sleight-of-mind maneuvers that you have to pull off to explain a omnipotent, all-caring, ever-compassionate God who created Hitler, pedophiles, the Ku Klux Klan, the Crusades, Rwanda, and Republicans (j/k).

That's just one of the many reasons I've always thought of God as the creation of mankind, rather than the reverse.


I do believe that we reap what we sow, in that good deeds lead to good results, and bad deeds to bad results. However, I view it not as punishment from God, but merely an "opportunity" for humans to understand the consequences of their own actions: the metaphysical equivalent of Newton's third law--for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

I do thus believe in the Eastern concept of karma, which is very similar to the notion of reaping what one sows.

However, I do not believe in a karma that is fatalistic or deterministic. It is but one factor that influences our gifts and life course. I also believe in reincarnation because it allows for humans to reach their full potential; a baby that dies prematurely or someone who has led an immoral life will get a second chance. I feel that one lifetime does not a Mozart or a saint make.

I feel that the cycle of reincarnation will end for each individual when they have fulfilled their purpose or attained enlightenment. So the world I envision is one in which there is a balance of mercy and justice.

But I totally reject the idea that one must either accept or deny God in this one life and that choice determines your fate for eternity. I believe nature is patient though at times stern.

Although there are a fair number of details to be worked out concerning reincarnation and karma, it is one the best ways I know to guarantee a just and benevolent universe. Any other way allows for too much caprice in each one's life journey.


It would so seem, Sleipner. However, I tend to think that humanity is in some way fallen. Not because of some apple fiasco, or some genetic thing, but because we chose in some distant past to do things which were not "kosher." I kind of view different levels of reality in terms of spiritual frequency. If heaven is anywhere, it's on a higher frequency. If legions of Buddas are anywhere there on a higher frequency. We hadn't a clue about non-visible electomagnetic radition for eons, so why not Buddhas on a different level? Fundamental physics is far from complete and they're always screwing around with dimensions. Besides there are so many tales about people going to different levels through the world's metaphysical traditions, so why couldn't there be at least some truth to it?

In that same vein, since we chose to do things that weren't kosher: like covet, and murder, etc., we sort of sunk down to a different frequency where all sorts of craziness can go on: tsunamis, suicide bombers etc. The world around us reflects us to some extent. There are good people and bad people. There is the breath-takingly beautiful side to nature and then there is, as Michael Reynolds likes to point out, feces, lice, and natural disasters.

A corollary to this would be that extremely spiritually advanced people could correct some of these problems: like Jesus's miracles for example. My field is in neuroscience and I really don't think they have a handle on consciousness at all. So why couldn't a very advanced consciousness change physical law locally? We don't know why things follow physical law either. You may accuse me of highly speculative god-in-the-gaps thinking, but this isn't just little evolutionary details: these are really big holes in our understanding. I'm merely pointing out that say a belief in Jesus's miracles, say, need not be viewed as some extra-scientific supernatural phenomena. But you, know these kind of "yogi tricks" are deep in our subconscious--look at stars wars for instant. Maybe it's a distant memory. I'm probably frightening you with my loony-toon ideas, but I am very much intrigued by a possible interaction between physical law and consciousness. I focused on physics and neuroscience as an undergrad and will be going in grad school in neuro in a year, and so I really am interested if any of these loony ideas actually could be true.

You can't deny that it would be cool if they were.

Maybe I eat too much organic food and thus think too many crazy thoughts. I dunno.


Yeah, well I drink too much and they don't make sense...perhaps it's just cause I've fried too many brain cells ;)

I think one of my biggest problems in accepting metaphysical alternative realities is that I've always been extremely logical, left-brained, and nonmystical. It makes it really difficult to accept that someone "saw God" or some equally unbelievable experience, without first straining their statements through the sieve of psychological inquiry. If a born-again fundie says "Jesus came down and told me he loves me" I'd probably say, "yeah, right, and how many drinks had you had first?" Or perhaps, "so you fell asleep watching the Passion for the 19th time, huh?"

I've always been into fantasy and sci fi, and loved parapsychology sci fi in particular. It would be grand if one of these days someone could conclusively prove the existence of parapsychological phenomena. Since I tend to lump that sort of thing in with metaphysical mysticism, miracles, and other such phenomena, the lack of any convincing proof to date convinces me of the unbelievability of the rest. If Jesus really could turn water into wine, and various other similar things, wouldn't you think someone somewhere could do so today? And I'm not talking David Copperfield either.

Please forgive me...I just got home after about 7 drinks and 4 hours of dancing so I'm not sure how coherent I's after 3 am here ;)


No problem, Sleipner. I hope you don't have a hangover when you read this :)

I should clearly state that I am merely suggesting "miracles" are not necessarily as blatantly superstitious as you might first suspect. You know how certain materials change their properties dramatically at extremes of temperature and pressure? Think of the sun for instance: who would think that ordinary old hydrogen at extremely high temperatures would start fusing and releasing energy and light?

All I was pointing out is that there is large gap in both our understanding of consciousness as well as our understanding of why things obey physical law, or what physical law is exactly. The hole in our understanding is so large in these areas that you could easily put Jesus-sized "miracles" through. The reason, in this model, why "miracles" are not common is because ordinary people's consciousness is nowhere near the extreme "temperature" of Jesus's. If you read the Eastern literature, and other religious literature as well, they abound with people possessing supernatural powers. Some Eastern texts even provide a manual of sorts for eventually developing them. I definitely think a lot of miracles are included for literary embellishment, and I think charlatans abound. But you know, it only takes one counterexample.

Certainly, this is very speculative, but my point is to illustrate just how large the gap in our scientific understanding is.

I think a basic logical error that scientists are tempted to commit concerning these questions is to claim that if they can concoct any naturalistic explanation whatsoever, even if they have no proof for such an explanation, that therefore there is no problem to be explained. I am merely stating that given that science accepts things like non-local influences, teleporting photons, multiverses, dark energy--very wierd stuff you must admit--that it would be a very big error, and quite arrogant to rule out a priori the possibilites I just alluded to. The honest answer is that we just don't know, and each person will place their own bets concerning the likelihood of said events.

I say this to you as a fomer atheist. Often when I hear atheists talk, I am almost, almost, as embarrassed as when I hear traditional believers talk. Because they both, imho, both make glaring logical errors. Richard Dawkins claims that naturalistic evolution rules out God. No, you dumbass, it just rules out traditional ways of understanding God. I have seen atheists on Larry King live who were such dogmatists. Larry asked one, "So if you died and you "woke up" somewhere else, you'd be pissed?" And the atheist, who was the leader of some atheists' union, got all flustered and basically stated that life-after-death was a logical impossibility. I mean come on. The honest thing to say is that you thought it very unlikely.

I guess my major point is that I think sceptics make the error of thinking science rules out whole swaths of metaphysical ideas. They confuse philosophical naturalism with science. What I think science does do is to rule out pre-modern creation stories, but I think the major problem with, say Christianity, is not with its miracles. I think the major problem is that as a metaphysical system it is severely self-contradictory and just plain inelegant and even cruel in places.

At one time people would have thought airplanes and cellphones impossible. All I'm encouraging you to realize is that some things may not be as implausible as they first seem.

Interestingly, science is actually warming to more metaphysical views: though not in evolutionary biology--those poor dudes are still fighting with creationists. I myself worked in a neuroimaging lab where we examined the brain activity of Buddhist monks in meditation. It was a very wealthy lab, raked in millions by NIH, and this was just a side project.

Nonetheless, the head of the lab was friends with the Dalai Lama. I remember there being a conference at MIT concering the interelation of neuroscience with Buddhism. At one point a scientist would be embarrassed to mention consciousness, now it's a hot topic. You'd be suprised at the crazy things scientists and philosphers speculate. Check out

But as base, Sleipner, given that the data are currently insufficient, one's leanings depend strongly on one's experiences. I have been blessed with a fair number of spiritual experiences--nothing supernatural--but enough to make me much more favorable to such possibilities.

The point is, Sleipner, the next time you experience awe, or beauty, or joy and you feel tempted to "believe in something higher," you can do it and not feel intellectually embarrassed.

If you are so inclined, you might want to read books that touch on the intersection between science and religion. Or you might want to read books on Eastern religion. Buddhism might be particularly of interest, since it does not concern itself with God, and emphasizes that one ought do things because one feels they are right, not because of authority or domga. It is really quite refreshing.


I have actually intended to do some investigation into Buddhism least in part because my new bf is Buddhist, but also in that it seems to have a lot of practical aspects that might help me to improve myself.

Good point about believing in "higher powers" being intellectually embarrassing. Occasionally I have had such a moment in my life.

Also a good point about atheists confusing the rejection of religion with the rejection of the possibility of any greater being or mental plane. The former (imho) is perfectly justified, the latter moves atheism from a scientific position to a religion. That's why I claim agnosticism with a heavily anti-religious bias for my own viewpoint - there's not enough evidence for a stronger statement.


So we are really not so far apart as we might first have thought.

One last thought and then I'll shut up. There's also something to be said for personal experience as a kind of evidence: if you have a profound experience during meditation that is evidence of a kind. You could say it's the mind playing tricks. But if the atheists are right, does it really matter what we think? We're all just going to die anyway. And if some higher something exists, it stands to reason that people would be able to experience that somehow. One could choose to wait until all the evidence is in, but
you might lose a precious opportunity while waiting.

There is a classic Buddhist tale that relates to this in which Buddha compares the person who refuses to practice until everything is explained is like a person who has been shot by an arrow who tells his doctor not to remove the arrow until the doctor informs him of the materials out of which the arrow was constructed; the type of bird whose feathers adorn the arrow; the age, caste, and sex of the person who shot the arrow in the first place, etc. Buddha laments the "thicket of theorizing."

However, I guess I'm a pretty bad Buddhist with all my crazy theorizing. I had better stop rambling on. In any case, you know what you need: feel free to pitch anything I have said out the window if it doesn't suit you. What do I know, after all?

Good luck with your boyfriend and happy Buddha reading.


Adam, you said, "something to be said for personal experience as a kind of evidence".

The Buddha certainly regarded it as such. In fact, his investigation of how human consciousness works could accurately be called "subjective science."


(I just got back from the Boston area, that's why I've pretty much been lurking on my own blog!)


I found this entry, at 'The Yellow Line' weblog, via a Google News search for Jude Wanniski's name. Congratulations on getting that weblog listed in that very-popular news search engine.

On the topic of this entry:
Regarding "the term [having] legs" - One conservative Republican political leader in my state had a radio show called "The Progressive Conservative," but that was likely in a very-different context than the term's usage here.

That entry at 'The Yellow Line' is the first that I recall seeing this term used, in this way. This must be a new movement, or perhaps it's a rehashing of an older type of ideology. From the listing of names who they admire, it seems RINOistic to me...

Thanks for making us aware of those websites, and about this 'movement' (or whatever it is...). I don't know how much we'll be seeing of this in the future, but thanks for introducing us to this.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

New on FacTotem, my Natural History Blog

Jacques' Story: Escape From the Gulag

The AmbivAbortion Rant

Debating Intelligent Design


  • Listed on Blogwise

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2004