For analysis of the news, I used to be a regular reader of National Review, but its erudite attitude became too much for me to bare. I also subscribed to The Weekly Standard, but I grew intolerant of its neo-con proselytizing. Granted, it has been many years since I read these magazines, and I’m sure they deserve another try, but I am now leery that these conservative journals sold their intellectual soul during the Bush-era Republican take over of Washington. When I have a few precious moments to consider societal/political concerns, I expect more from my periodicals than simply repeating the latest Republican Party talking-points.

Don’t even get me started on television news. I used to enjoy CNN and Fox News from time to time, but no more. Even the once dependable Headline News is now parroting the 24-hour news soap opera. I miss the ability to switch on the TV and get a reasonable update on national and world events in an efficient capsule. Now, we must listen to drivel and contrived anger that will fade as quickly as the next news cycle.

The Economist is not the only sound source of news and analysis. The Wall Street Journal continues to provide concise and worthwhile reading. Also, there are number of nice iPhone apps that provide quick and easy access to timely news headlines. For religiously-inspired social analysis, it is hard to beat First Things.

Most modern news outlets, regardless of the medium, are simply venues for political theater and do little to raise the level of discourse and understanding. I respect publications like The Economist and the precious few that strive to truly inform and educate.

Mint recently posted the following on their blog.  Just like I love graphs, I love infographics of any kind. This summary of charity shines a light on the importance of doing good with what we’ve been given.

There is no doubt that our recent economic tumult will supply countless grad students with ample material for master theses and doctoral dissertations for years to come.

My Political Views
I am a centrist moderate social authoritarian
Right: 0.92, Authoritarian: 1.16

Political Spectrum Quiz

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

The Gettysburg Address is oratorical poetry. It is simultaneously a beautiful expression of English prose and a seminal statement of American governance. We are one country, made hallowed and significant by the sacrifices of the men who died to defend its principles.

Obviously, you cannot separate the speech’s content from its context. This speech was given as the tide of the war was turning. It was becoming apparent that the Union would stand. Therefore, Lincoln’s brief statement was an eloquent sigh; one that signified that the war would be won and the sacrifices of its brave soldiers were the reason for the Union’s survival.

It is beautiful because of its brevity and focus. Much like the old prayers written in prayer books used years ago. Each word was chosen carefully. Each word has a job to do. Like a piece of colored glass being placed in a stain-glass window. Each lovely on its own, but forming a composite of glory. Okay, maybe my oratory is getting a little too rich, but we are rarely given an opportunity to wax on about the beauty of language.

What is interesting is that a speech like this could still be delivered today. Its style is not bound to its time. Churchill could have given this speech, maybe even Reagan or Obama. You could not deliver a speech like this on the campaign trail, but standing at the gravesite of fallen soldiers, or at another suitably somber and substantial event, it would still blow our socks off. We need “plain talk” but we also need a little nobility of thought AND language every once in awhile.