You might remember the story of Dan Savage savaging the bible at a High School speech, students walks out and Savage mocked the. Brian Brown at the time issued a challenge:

Let me lay down a public challenge to Dan Savage right here and now: You want to savage the Bible? Christian morality? Traditional marriage? Pope Benedict? I’m here, you name the time and the place and let’s see what a big man you are in a debate with someone who can talk back. It’s easy to make high-school girls cry by picking on them. Let’s pick on someone our own size!

The date was Aug 15th the place was Dan Savage’s house and the time was after dinner with a NYT reporter (who by his own description was constantly drinking) as moderator. I guess when Brian Brown says any place any time he MEANS it.

How did it go? Well here is what the reporter Mark Oppenheimer, got from the two sides:

Several days later, I asked Mr. Savage, Mr. Miller and Mr. Brown how they thought the debate had gone. (DJ, Mr. Savage and Mr. Miller’s 14-year-old son, ate with us but left before the debate, so I didn’t bother him with questions.)

Mr. Miller pronounced the entire night a waste of time. “Brian’s heartless readings of the Bible, then his turns to ‘natural law’ when the Bible fails, don’t hide his bigotry and cruelty,” Mr. Miller wrote in an e-mail. “In the end, that’s what he is. Cruel.”

I spoke with Mr. Brown by phone, and he seemed to agree that the setting had made little difference. “There’s this myth that folks like me, we don’t know any gay people, and if we just met them, we would change our views,” he said. “But the notion that if you have us into your house, that all that faith and reason that we have on our side, we will chuck it out and change our views — that’s not the real world.”

As for Mr. Savage, he felt that being on his home turf had actually worked against him. “Playing host put me in this position of treating Brian Brown like a guest,” he said. “It was better in theory than in practice — it put me at a disadvantage during the debate, as the undertow of playing host resulted in my being more solicitous and considerate than I should’ve been. If I had it to do over again, I think I’d go with a hall.”

Mr. Millers answer seems to show an ignorance of historical Catholic thought, Considering Mr. Savage’s choice of location his complaint is a tad empty but I suggest you listen to the debate in full and make up your own mind.

I suspect it will be quite a revelation to many young people who are assured by the MSM that there is no possible rational argument against Gay Marriage.

As for me I’d be happy to see these debates on every college campus around the nation. For centuries scripture has been attacked and for centuries the finest minds in Christendom have defended it successfully.

Debate and reason are the friends of truth and thus the friends of scripture. Bring it on!

Update: I just watched the debate which after the moderator had a few became 2 on 1. I am shocked that so many on the pro-gay marriage side linked it as Mr. Savage was pretty much owned by Brown.

Well not exactly new.

First Riehl World View has become Riehl World News:

While I could go on forever as to the whys and wherefores leading to the many decisions I made along the way to arrive at this particular design configuration, I’ll spare you the rambling and cut to the chase as to how best to read it going forward, if you’re of a mind to do so. In some ways, it’s like having three blogs in one to accomodate three different styles of blogging – each of which I employ most days I am blogging.

Meanwhile William Jacobson has a new blog in addition to his own one called College Insurrection

One of our goals is to give conservative and libertarian student writers a larger platform and audience.

To that end, we will link regularly to college conservative and libertarian publications, listed in the Student Blogroll in the sidebar. If we have missed a publication, send me an email and we will add it.

Additionally, we welcome guest posts from students and faculty at the college and graduate school level, particularly at schools which do not have a separate conservative or libertarian publication. We have implemented a portal in which guest posts can be submitted in the form of a WordPress post. The link is in the sidebar just below my image.

Give both a peek and while you’re at it, I have a friend who could use a hand. If you can help him, it would be appreciated.

Oh and Under the Fedora is now up at The Conservatory, the Minority Report and Conservatively Speaking a peek

BTW have you ever noticed that apologies are never accepted if they come from Republicans. If you are a democrat you can Sexually Harass interns in the White House and remain president, You can have your boyfriend run a call service from your apartment and remain in congress and you can avoid paying the taxes you owe become treasury secretary. The letter D after your name apparently is stronger that the most expensive indulgence that the Catholic church ever sold.

Make sure you check it out.

Update:
How on earth could I forget the Fog of Law the new blog by Bridget Fay. Her latest:

McKinsey explains that many employers will offer increased compensation to their employees if their health care plans are dropped; however, such thinking underestimates the ways in which employees undervalue their compensation packages. On the average, employers spend 43 cents on benefits per dollar of payroll; however, employees only value about half of that. (Here is a comprehensive list of the non-payroll costs that employers pay.) Should employers cut back on health insurance, their employees may demand a higher salary – but not high enough to cover their costs.

Don’t miss her.

Apparently there is no such animal:

“It’s a shame that … more people don’t do that,” said Amin Sadri, 23, a Florida independent. “That more people, for lack of a better word, they almost feed at the trough. They are set on a certain mindset, so they only listen and gather information that is already predestined to go in a certain direction.”

Yeah Sadri is an “independent”. He doesn’t make judgements based on party…

Sadri for example, supported Barack Obama in the 2008 election and plans to do so again in 2012. Going back to the presidential race between Republican Bob Dole and Democrat Bill Clinton in 1996 — when Sadri was a small child — the disputed 2000 race between Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush, and the 2004 election between Bush and Democrat John Kerry, Sadri said he has always wanted the Democrat to win.

…until it’s time to vote. So why does he not join the side he is actually on? Can you say: Plausible deniability

So why isn’t he a registered Democrat?

“See, that’s the problem,” he said. “As soon as I say that I’m a Democrat, people look at me and say, ‘Oh, you believe in this, you believe in this, you believe in this,’ and I don’t!”

Yeah sure he doesn’t. If that’s the truth, if he doesn’t believe what the democrats believe, then he should be persuadable, right…

This fall, Sadri will count himself as an independent voter. But if the campaigns think he’s persuadable, they’ll be wasting their time.

…or not.

Any Massachusetts voter who has seen a state with 50% vote democrat over and over knows the real story.

For many people, the ability to deny deny deny for social reasons means a lot and the faux message of being “independent” is a matter of self-esteem: I’m above the fray.

It’s BS and the NPR story talks about a fascinating study to show it:

Nosek and Hawkins proved the test was measuring people’s real attitudes by asking the volunteers to evaluate different policies. Some were labeled Democratic ideas. Others were labeled Republican. Then Nosek secretly switched the labels. The idea that used to be called Democratic was now labeled Republican, and the idea that used to be Republican was now labeled Democratic.

“What we found was that independents who were implicitly Democratic tended to favor the plan proposed by Democrats,” Nosek said. “And independents who were implicitly Republican tended to favor the plan proposed by Republicans. And it didn’t matter which plan was which. emphasis mine

One interesting thing on this story. I listened to the audio and read the transcript from above there is one difference that jumped out at me

Referring to the tests to identify what independents actually said:

Independents? Some showed no bias for either party. But the vast majority did.

But in the online story it said this

Independents? Some showed no bias for either party. But many did.

What is the take away? As polls usually show “independents” as 12-16 percent of the vote, the reality is you are talking 3-4% TOPS. The means one thing:

Every election is a base election and a smart candidate will act accordingly.

You can listen to the story here.

Update: I owe a hat tip to Hot Air headlines