I'm not clairvoyant. But, I am Batman.

I never want to celebrate my birthday, but my wife and family do. Why tick them off? Plus, I like the excuse of making others feel special.

Mine is a logo I conceived of after Mr. Robinson explained his interview strategy of placing his Uncommon Knowledge guests at ease. 

I'm entirely sympathetic to Libertarian positions on government, free markets, etc. And, yes, I do agree that persuasion is an essential ingredient to allying those with common cause.

The problem arises on a more personal level. As a SoCon, I see personal virtue, family life, and community as necessary to maintain individual freedoms. Now, of the libertarians I personally know some hold very similar understandings, but the majority do not. I do not mean that these persons are morally bankrupt or even bad company. They just seem to be of a devil-may-care attitude. Its a hedonism (especially the younger) or Epicurean-ism (among the older) shoved together free-market principles. Most, but not all, are atheist and most, but not all, are hostile toward religion.  

Here in my neighborhood, it just seems that Libertarian is a byword for socially liberal and economically conservative, which strikes me as at odds. I know that Libertarianism is a unique proposition, but if I knew nothing  about it academically, I'd believe it to be the government pulling down a cross and nominally regulating or taxing strip clubs. 

As a parent, to my shame, I've played thoughts like this woman's in my head, only I've struck those thoughts down. They're purposeless, evil thoughts that would have bestowed a miserable self-importance on me.  

I was 22 when I had Stuart, who was a placid and biddable baby. So, no, my feelings were not sparked by tiredness, nor by post-natal depression or even a passing spell of baby blues.

It seems people are waiting for life to be easy and fulfilling. These are at odds with each other. The worth of maternal/paternal relationships with your children is the honest effort we invest in them. Feelings are sparked because of tiredness, post-natal depression or a passing spell of baby blues--not in their absence--and become fully formed bonds. 

I believe your wrong on this point. Simply put, if society is capable of redefining the institution of marriage, that stands upon a tradition older than our rights, though deemed "self-evident" by our Declaration of Independence, than our rights are just as susceptible to redefining as marriage. 

To my libertarian friends, I believe this is the great con of the SSM debate. 

Honestly, I think Mr. Prager missed an opportunity here. Marriage isn't defined by government. For so long, it's been a no-brainer--until now. I'd liken it to Plato's forms. If I start referring to my dog as a cat, my sanity is questioned, not the template by which my dog actually fits. Likewise, governments are legitimized by guaranteeing rights that are self-evident. In other words, there are standards that are beyond humankind meddling for the good of humankind by our Creator. 

I second that. I was diagnosed with ADHD in my thirties. As a diagnoses it was a complete paradigm shift, explaining many, many behaviors (though not "bad" per se) that placed me at a disadvantage in school.

Additionally, Ritalin is a stimulate. It doesn't help anybody, especially boys, be more sedate if they don't have ADHD. It makes them worse! Also, it doesn't change the behavior of a person with ADHD, it simply helps them maintain focus. In my case, that meant I could read a paragraph once and retain the information, instead of repeatedly losing my place, reading it multiple times, and still forgetting what I just read.

For a thirty-seven year old, I'm still relatively hyper.

It's extremely weird for me to hear parents explain physical behavior in boys as ADHD.

See DocJay's advice above.

Pretty much anything by John Carpenter is a perfectly "good" bad movie. Well, yeah, sometimes they're just bad movies.

But. my all-time favorite movie isBig Trouble In Little China. Terrible John Wayne-esque dialog, horrible stereotype characters, bad kung fu, neon lit Chinese demon idol statues, Kim Catrall, James Hong as the Heavy. The only thing missing is Bolo Yeung. 

Ah, my brain is releasing endorphins.

The problem of scientific positivism, materialism, and naturalism are they are effective philosophies as long as the foundationala priori knowledge of our conscious mental states accurately reflect reality around us. This correlation between perception and reality is not likely based on these philosophies and they lack they intellectual tools to investigate this area of deficiency.

Ahh, superheroes.

First off, great podcast. Second, as a comic artist and lover of mostly gold and silver age heroes, I think its interesting to note how heroes act as stand-ins for political and philosophical outlooks. Superman began as a character that carried a lot of water for Roosevelt's New Deal Liberalism and like-minded progressive ideology of the era. Jonah Goldberg might have called Supes a liberal fascist. 

However, the two intrinsic qualities, it seems to me, that push superheroes to more conservative ends is 1) their exceptionalism and 2) their ethos.  The Incredibles explicitly speaks to 1) and captures 2).  

The postmodern morality experiment just doesn't play well with a character that stands for some form of justice, however that word is defined by the character. 

I find the whole "it's a parasite" meme disturbing. A baby is not a parasite. Why would you call a baby that? Did these young women identify themselves as parasites? 

I like Arthur Brooks' argument. The key, which he share on a past Ricochet podcast is to frame the debate in moral terms. I think conservatism is appealing, but I find a lot of conservatives, myself included sometimes, believe it something of a gnostic philosophy.  

Instead of buzzing through flow charts and academic manifestos as we're apt to do when expounding the virtues of conservatism, why not start with a simple, but obvious question: Who knows you best?

The answer shouldn't be the federal government. So, why should the federal government sap the monetary resources of those who know you the best (and, therefore, what you need) and care the most?

I'm sure there's a better formulation to the question, but I think it illustrates the most basic understanding of small government, low tax, moral engagement, and community building that conservatives champion. 

You know, I took the post to mean more that selfishness is sort of purged from a young woman and man when they have children. I personally was surprise by how selfish, even if well-meaning, I was before I'd married and we'd had our first baby. The veil had been lifted. It was the Rumsfeldian "unknown unknown" I encountered. 

Now, with social mechanics not what they once were, there's little pressure to marry and have kids.  And, hence, the selfish man or woman saunters  through their life unenlightened to their condition.  Of course, there are other means to find this self-knowledge, but parenthood seems the naturally immediate avenue.  

I don't know. Maybe?

You're right. But, that's why this story is so good and heartfelt. Those qualities you describe of competition are demonstrably good. However, both the coach and the Franklin player, the fans, and both benches sacrificed these good things (things of value to them, personally) to uphold a greater good--the love of and toward a young man. 

It's singularity is sublime.

Does a traffic officer break the law if he breaks the speed limit? No. The officer has greater legal authority to carry out his duties. In the same way, God has greater moral authority, and more importantly, no one gives God duties or moral obligations.

Also, because He is the moral paradigm, His character being the locus of goodness, His wrath and jealousy gathers His creation to Him--the greatest Good. If I were to act jealous and wrathful, it would be for my gain, which, as a subordinate creature and morally flawed, would be a sin.

This argument is like exclaiming two men, one drunk and the other sober, the same in character because they both hoped into a car and drove home.