I don’t know how to describe today’s column other than to say it is one of the best, most significant pieces I’ve read since I began One Daily Link. The reasons for this are many, but I’ll limit myself here to two.

The first involves a short introduction to the column written by the publishing website’s founder. In her characteristically gracious and thoughtful way, the founder acknowledges her disagreements with the columnist. Yet it is because of these disagreements — not despite them — that she’s promoting the column. And as I said above, the column is remarkable. It’s not some half-baked nonsense the founder has happily served up for readers to pick apart in the comments. She wants the piece to lead to conversations and knows it could lead to changed minds. Her willingness to post it anyway speaks to an intellectual honesty unheard of in certain spheres today.

The second reason for the column’s brilliance is its nuance. I can’t remember the last time a writer so deftly staked out his position while readily acknowledging the gray areas inconvenient to his case. It’s another instance of that oh-so-rare intellectual honesty in which a person can make his argument while conceding it isn’t ironclad. Because no political argument is ironclad. The writers and commentators able to admit that are the ones worth listening to. We need more of them, but I’m not complaining. I’ll happily take the ones we have, especially when they write like this. This is commentary with the potential to change not just our minds, but our discourse. Please share it.