Yo, skribbler;

Sorry if the revelation of my political persuasion is a shock.

I’m a conservative from way back, ie: predating “neo-conservatism” - a paleo-conservative if you will. A new acquaintance, who fancied himself something of a leftie back in the day once observed: “Now I’ve seen everything; a fascist hippie!” (I hasten to emphasize that I have never been a fascist, but such was the rhetorical excess of that particular era).

He didn’t hold it against me, we subsequently shared a couple of apartments, and I was the Best Man at his wedding. We’re still friends, and these days he’s a conservative too. There is progress.....

I’m also a orthodox traditionalist Christian, so I guess that makes me a member of the “religious right,” a categorization that I don’t disavow.

What you and I do agree on is that the Mac is not a political symbol, but just a good computer.

Charles

Thanks for the alternate view and for mentioning the other factors that might be contributing. That’s what responsible journalists are supposed to do and we don’t get much of that theses days.

I too, match your description in both the political and religious areas. I came out of a printing and publishing background and the Mac was just the best fit for what I wanted to do. I’ve been a Mac fanboy since about 1987 and have never looked back.

I read the PC help columns in the newspaper and just shake my head at some of the hoops that PC users have to go through just to function at all and I’m amazed that they put up with it at all.

Great article.

Hi Jim;

Glad you enjoyed the article. We seem to be on pretty much the same page across the board.

Yes, the Mac is a superb tool for getting stuff done efficiently and elegantly, and I too am mystified at how people put up with using Windows machines. The malware issue alone would be a deal-breaker for me.

Charles

Hi Ben;

In the late 20th and early 21st Centuries, there certainly has been a muddling of liberal/conservative terminology. In the contemporary North American political and economic context, both nominally “conservative” and nominally “liberal” beliefs are somewhat adulterated downstream products of the post-Enlightenment liberal ethos. While they disagree on a number of important nuances, neo-conservatives and neo-liberals share in common the essentially liberal notions that individual self-interest, material comfort and acquisition, and economic growth are the correct and self-sufficient ends of human endeavour. Both place their faith in science, technology, and industrial prosperity as the satisfactory means to achieving these ends. Their biggest disagreement is over who or what will be in control of the social agenda.

The late Canadian conservative philosopher George Grant observed that: “Americans who call themselves conservatives have the right to that title only in a particular sense. In fact they are old-fashioned liberals… Their concentration on freedom from governmental interference has more to do with 19th century liberalism than with traditional conservatism, which asserts the right of the community to restrain freedom in the name of common good.”

As for your point about “the idea that unborn children should be saved but that it is ok to experiment on animals,” Christianity, and for that matter Islam and Judaism as well, are all anthropocentric religions, maintaining that the essence of our humanity does not derive from a common evolutionary process with the creatures we share our biological essence with, but that humans are uniquely cast in the image and likeness of the Creator, possessing an immortal soul that other animals do not, so human life has intrinsically greater value than animal life. That doesn’t excuse cruelty or callousness, but it does make a degree of exploitation of animal life for, say, medical research, or for food, morally and ethically acceptable and even commendable.

Charles

As the debate has leapt from politics to religion, let me say a few things I believe. One, I believe that Christianity, Judaism, Islam and all of the related religions that came before them, were born in a cave during a thunderstorm. Not understanding what was happening, people fell to their knees and begged God to make the thunder go away. If God would make the thunder go away, they promised to prostrate themselves, sing God’s praises (much in the way a bully, or a potentate, would so demand) and give to God a tenth of whatever they could wrench from the soil every year.

Second, I don’t objectify God. God is and I am one of God’s thoughts. God is not an old man, or even a man. God is a dream, we live within that dream, and all is consciousness, including matter, time, and the lingering taste of Tootsie Rolls.

Three, God is not going to die for my sins. I will die, so it can’t be said I’m being saved in any literal sense. Still, I believe all that I can see, or hear, or think, every feeling I have whether it is love, ambition, or creation, are all part of God’s consciousness and memories. If it can exist, it does. If it has existed, it exists.

To kill, harm, ridicule, or oppose anyone else’s beliefs is silly because they’re God’s, too.

Written with malice to none and good wishes to all.

Richard Taylor