Two emails from readers: viewers re today’s segment :

Mr. Goldberg (Jonah, failing formalities) –

You’re not quite the ass I thought you were! [I couldn’t resist. Really. I’m sure I’m person number three billion and six to jump at that brass ring.]

No, in all seriousness, even slightly edging out the 7/11 Kwik-E-Mart conversion as a triumph of both the Simpsonic hegemony in the 18-to-45 segment of American culture as well as the power of capitalism to make actual wealth out of quite literally fiction, the discovery of “What’s Your Problem?” has been the most fortuitous, uplifting experience of my last week.

In a culture – not simply a political culture, but, I fear, an overall parent culture – which has seemed to allow the rapid erosion of civility across all strata and cleavages, WYP [hereafter so abbreviated] bears the logistical advantage of temporality (namely, whenever I’ve the spare fifteen minutes for the webcast) as well as the much more important substantive advantage of setting an example of two brilliant men discussing difficult issues wherein you acknowledge the valid points of the opposite, yet do not devolve into rancor nor capitulate your respective “positions.”

I will be heading to George Mason University School of Law in the fall, to pursue a Juris Doctor (pending the job of columnist for NR of my erstwhile dreams) – I have to imagine WYP will catch on rapidly at such a place. Keep up the good fight, so to speak – not just the fight itself, but your noble conduct therein.

And:

I just listened to your and Peter B’s discussion of liberals reaction to the London attempted bombings. I enjoyed it and had one comment on your discussion of whether liberals or conservatives had the better on how best to integrate Muslims into the county’s social fabric. With respect to religion, you made the point that liberals were more like the French wanting to banish religion from the schools.

I disagree in part and I think it is actually worse. Liberals want strict separation between church and state when it comes to Judeo-Christian type interactions. However, when it comes to Muslims, it seems that they want to simultaneously pursue much more of an accomodationist approach, whether it is to permit cab drivers to refuse to pick up passengers or allow people to wash their feet in bathroom sinks. The Powerline guys have pointed this out. In the long run, this type of dual treatment will harmful and, perhaps, even dangerous.

Frankly, I think it comes down to the fact that many liberals (not the Peter B. grownup kind) but the Bill Maher and Michael Moore types like to say that that liberals are tolerant and Republicans are not. In fact, few are less tolerant than Maher, he just thinks different things (gays, Muslims, etc.) are cool. At the same time, you have liberal view to always support the “underdog” they want to accommodate a Muslim cab driver or a Zoroastrian lesbian kickboxer, but have no interest in helping a white Christian because they believe that society has already favored this person.

Incidentally, this is why Romney is a dead duck. On the right, he is distrusted because many Christian conservatives think Mormonism is not a good thing, just like athiesm or Islam, they view it as an inferior to the Judeo-Christian view. Yet, on the left, Mormonism is also distrusted, because it is white and middle class won’t be viewed as cool like a third world religion or alternative lifestyle. He will be whip-sawed.

Keep up the good work!