I leave you with a ditty of my own creation:

I don’t have a porch
I don’t have a gun,
I don’t have a pick up truck,
Just a broken song.

For another soon to be ghost town,
on another new frontier,
as wave after wave of virtual immigrants
wash up upon digital shore.
A few pennies, a few parades,
A new fortune, a new life we’ve made

A life without a future.
A life without a past.
A life that runs on a perpetual supply
of foreign produced, foreign made gas.

Boom!

Albert said: “…as if merely making a choice renders traditionalism moot.”

It doesn’t render it moot, exactly, but it does render it inauthentic.

I don’t think so. As I’ve said, one always has the choice to accept or reject even the traditions one inherits, and one is not thereby inauthentic. The prodigal son left before he came back.

If you mean the choice of a different tradition than the traditions one inherits is inauthentic, it really depends on the context. Suppose a father rejected the traditions of his people and place; is his son therefore “inauthentic” to receive the cultural inheritance from his forefathers and people? Surely not. Surely one is authentically traditional, i.e. true to the tradition, by carrying on the traditions of a place and past in the acknowledgment of their rootedness in the natural order.

It seems to me that the difference between an inauthentic modern choosing a tradition as a “lifestyle choice” and an authentic traditional man is not a matter of the absence of choice, which is psychologically impossible and historically false, but in the authentic traditional man’s recognition, submission and commitment to the limits of place and community rather than individual Will as the source of culture.

Albert said: “But this is nonsense, since a limited sort of liberty of will manifesting in making choices and decisions has always been a part of the human condition, and the choice to, for example, be faithful to one’s wife does not make one a modern merely because, in the language of Maggie Gallagher, one has chosen to “purchase” the “consumer good” of monogamous restraint.”

There is a difference between “choosing” to abide by an objective truth of human nature—something that is true for all humans across all localities—such as to be faithful to your wife (choosing to sin or not) versus choosing one non-moral option over another—such as choosing to listen to your local bluegrass picker over choosing to listen to U2. —unless you want to make the argument that this is, indeed, a moral choice. Choosing to do good over evil is not always the same thing as choosing the traditional over the modern. Along these same lines, Mr. Wilson’s example about Roman Catholicism seems off. Isn’t the point of a “catholic” Church that it is universal—something that transcends the various cultures, localities, and time?

I’m not sure what the concern is here. I do think that while “all things are lawful,” not everything is beneficial or equally wise or loving. Perhaps it would be wiser to listen to your local bluegrass picker if he’s your neighbor and you love him. Perhaps not. The point is, he is your neighbor. I’m sure he’d appreciate your help if he were in need, whether that help comes in the form of listening to him or suggesting and helping him find a new career.

BTW, I gotta new name for the president, may his name be etched in diamonds, “Jacko-Barracko.” Whadda ya think?
Here’s the problem…I don’t think he’s got rhythm…have you ever notice our president’s never have rhythm!
“Ugh…It’s Twine Time!” now that was a sound!

A person of your obvious sense of humor should avoid the World Improvers because they never met a joke they don’t want to kill at a thousand meters.

But, glad to hear you say you’re off to another “town” and not some metroplex devoid of porches. Drop in again , any time.

I’d elaborate on that passage, but I think it would be too off the main topic of the discussion. If you send me your e-mail, I’ll send you a couple of articles I wrote where I talk about the issue.

Next time you see a over-sized piece of tumble weed with a strange blinking red light, be suspicious. Very…

You might expand on the above. Spengler over at First Things is talking about “talking” to God, but not “talking” if you know what I mean.
Sorry, I should have been paying closer attention. I’m older, my mind wonders or is that wanders?

As to Wheat, it is far too contemporary a grain for my tastes, Hairshirts prefer the meager seeds of Panic and Cheat Grass with a side of tumbleweed.

I’m disappointed.

“What is Love”?

Why…of course, it’s two Brazilian Hookers , a full stomach and empty beachfront.

Why do you ask?