![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
High today in KW: 10. Dewpoint then: 8. High dewpoint: 8.
High today, here: 11. Dewpoint then: 10. High dewpoint: 10.
Oh God. Something L. just said reminded me that I happened to catch Billy Bragg on Canada AM (i.e., Canada's Good Morning America) this morning. It was very disturbing. He substituted the word "puck" for "ball". And he pointedly pointed out to the little dork in the shiny suit and tie--who gushed about how he and his buddies in university had been inspired by Bragg's songs--that on the new nine-disc box set, there's really about three love songs for every political song.
So, tonight I play CuJo against Columbus, and sit Huet on the assumption that Aebischer plays. And CuJo gives up five goals, and Huet plays, and shuts out the Bruins. And still, somehow, I am in first place in both my leagues.
Went to a public lecture--the 'Or 'Emet Lecture, in fact--by (the (in)famous) Brian Leiter today (which, actually, made me get up an hour earlier than I otherwise would've, which enabled my catching Billy Bragg on Canada AM), which was interesting for two reasons: Brian Leiter is considerably older-looking, darker- and curlier-haired, balder, and wishy-washier than I'd expected; and the talk was a great example of how easy it is to construct a public lecture.
The topic was, is there anything specific to religious beliefs and practices in virtue of which they're entitled to a greater degree of tolerance than other beliefs and practices? (Which is particularly topical in Canada just now in light of the recent SCC kirpan decision, which Leiter noted in passing.) So, what you do is, you spend half an hour laying out a couple of standard liberal cases (one Rawlsian, one utilitarian) for tolerating things in general (which North American philosophers pretty much universally can do in their sleep); you spend twenty minutes laying out a couple of arguments from the recent literature for the specific specialness of religious beliefs and practices; you spend five minutes saying that what makes religion specifically special is irrelevant to why anything should be tolerated; and you conclude with a caveat that maybe you should specially tolerate religious beliefs and practices anyway, because if you don't, you might end up like France. Hey presto!
High today, here: 11. Dewpoint then: 10. High dewpoint: 10.
Oh God. Something L. just said reminded me that I happened to catch Billy Bragg on Canada AM (i.e., Canada's Good Morning America) this morning. It was very disturbing. He substituted the word "puck" for "ball". And he pointedly pointed out to the little dork in the shiny suit and tie--who gushed about how he and his buddies in university had been inspired by Bragg's songs--that on the new nine-disc box set, there's really about three love songs for every political song.
So, tonight I play CuJo against Columbus, and sit Huet on the assumption that Aebischer plays. And CuJo gives up five goals, and Huet plays, and shuts out the Bruins. And still, somehow, I am in first place in both my leagues.
Went to a public lecture--the 'Or 'Emet Lecture, in fact--by (the (in)famous) Brian Leiter today (which, actually, made me get up an hour earlier than I otherwise would've, which enabled my catching Billy Bragg on Canada AM), which was interesting for two reasons: Brian Leiter is considerably older-looking, darker- and curlier-haired, balder, and wishy-washier than I'd expected; and the talk was a great example of how easy it is to construct a public lecture.
The topic was, is there anything specific to religious beliefs and practices in virtue of which they're entitled to a greater degree of tolerance than other beliefs and practices? (Which is particularly topical in Canada just now in light of the recent SCC kirpan decision, which Leiter noted in passing.) So, what you do is, you spend half an hour laying out a couple of standard liberal cases (one Rawlsian, one utilitarian) for tolerating things in general (which North American philosophers pretty much universally can do in their sleep); you spend twenty minutes laying out a couple of arguments from the recent literature for the specific specialness of religious beliefs and practices; you spend five minutes saying that what makes religion specifically special is irrelevant to why anything should be tolerated; and you conclude with a caveat that maybe you should specially tolerate religious beliefs and practices anyway, because if you don't, you might end up like France. Hey presto!
