After seeing Joe Carter’s batch of gay marriage nonsense the other day, I realized the blog it came from is actually, on the whole, decent. Consider this post on the current situation in Gaza:

On Israel and Palestine, I argue narrowly, concerning myself with English language discourse about world events, rather than making sweeping judgments about events themselves. This is so because I’ve got no viable solution to one of the world’s most intractable conflicts, except to say that public discourse is one way that better positions are arrived at over time, and that marginally improving that discourse as best I can, negligible though my efforts may be, is the only way I can see for a largely unknown writer in the United States to contribute to a better world.

So far, I’ve asserted two main arguments: 1) I’ve argued, contra Joe, that those who condemn Israel for killing Palestinian civilians are not necessarily engaging in moral relativism. 2) I’ve argued, contra Freddie (and using the Normandy invasion card, I’m afraid) that it’s untenable and insufficient to argue that any military act resulting in predictable civilian casualties is morally wrong and to be condemned…

Bonus points if you noticed the use of “moral relativism” to mean “moral judgements I disagree with.”