|
Post by kungfuzu on Oct 11, 2019 15:17:46 GMT -8
NRO is begging readers to contribute funds with which to fight Michael "Hockey Stick Hoax" Mann's lawsuit against them.
I find this rather rich considering the way NRO dumped Mark Steyn (who wrote the article which upset Mann.) Steyn has been fighting Mann on his own for something like seven years. It must have cost him hundreds of thousands, at the very least. Where was NRO?
There were 40 comments to NRO's plea for cash, but only three mentioned NRO's handling of Steyn. I suspect the number is so low as those of us who found NRO's actions contemptible have reduced our time at NRO to a minimum. Here are the comments.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Oct 11, 2019 15:52:49 GMT -8
As I'm sure you know, Steyn has pointed out on his own website the problems he's had paying the legal bills for the eternal lawsuit and the DC court's judicial malpractice. He tries to pay for it by selling his books, tapes, etc. -- which at least doesn't involve pleading for donations. (Though I'm sure he wouldn't reject them.)
I saw that item, too, and my reaction was similar. But I'm not a subscriber. Currently I think all my responses are either here or on Disqus (which handles responses for Town Hall, Hot Air, and the Daily Caller). I had an account on Reason.com, but somewhere along the time I was logged out, and I don't know the password after all that time and all my moves.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Oct 11, 2019 19:47:06 GMT -8
You’re hitting it out of the ballpark with your comments, Mr. Kung. This is why I started the Reality Culture thread. It’s seems like the greatest organizing principle to unify all this — higher either than right/left. One may agree or disagree about what should be done. But first let’s take in reality. And yet almost no one is doing that. Reality is slowly being forbidden and most of the “conservative” media goes along with it. They accept the basic tenets of the Left. Integrity is a lost value. Very few have it. NRO can go to hell. They’re not fighting the good fight although a couple writers there (VDH. McCarthy) are mostly above their nonsense. That first comment is a good one.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Oct 18, 2019 13:49:31 GMT -8
It appears one will now have to get their dose of David Frenchism at some new startup with Stephen Hayes and Jonah Goldberg. Bye byeOne can only suspect this new publication will have the life span of a May Fly.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Oct 18, 2019 17:59:49 GMT -8
I confess I was looking for comments of the type “Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.” I found one:
Another commenter wrote:
But this one takes the cake:
I’m going to hand you some “big picture” thoughts now that it’s likely only Mr. Kung and perhaps a few others might understand.
David Frenchism (or Jonah Goldbergism, for that matter) is ultimately about going along with the general magnetic pull of the “Progressive” culture while pretending not to. The rest is detail.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Oct 18, 2019 18:11:05 GMT -8
Those were some very interesting replies. I use "addition by subtraction" a fair amount, as befits someone who started at Purdue as a math math major with a computer science tech option. (I switched to computer science as a major when I found that my math skills were a tad shy of what they needed. Floormates at my dorm knew about MA 440 -- honors real analysis -- in which I was seriously concerned if I could pull a C in an A-B-C course. I did, somehow.)
Robert Frost once said that a liberal is someone who won't fight for his own side. That sounds like the point made by the second response. The third is interesting but makes a little slip: the famous phrase to reflect political opportunism is "go along to get along", not the reverse. If you think about it, you'll see why.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 27, 2020 9:10:32 GMT -8
How to write as if you have an opinion and yet have no obvious opinion: A Nation of Barbers. First, I’ll admit I couldn’t make it all the way through. I had to skim. The central question is: Should schools have dress codes? The obvious answer is: Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. That seems to be Williamson’s opinion. He seems as superficially thoughtless as Jonah Goldberg when he writes: That is a false choice. You need discipline and order in order to educate anyone. And what would be so wrong with “docile rule-followers” if the rules are good and just? But none of this is news. Conservatives (especially at NRO) long ago surgically removed their testicles so that they never had to stand for any rule (let alone “stand athwart”) and could caterwaul as if they were saying something while saying very little. We’ve run the experiment of “let it all hang out, no rules, everyone self-expressing themselves” and all we end up with are grades and feckless school administrators who use as an excuse “personal expression” to never apply discipline or hold anyone to standards. But the point of public school is for people to “personally express” their skills at having learned the academic subjects.
In more general terms, the point is not to patronize the little monsters but to shape them into intelligent and civilized gentlemen and gentlewomen.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 27, 2020 9:24:58 GMT -8
So how is The Dispatch doing? Not much. Goldberg has an article titled What Does It Mean to be a Conservative Today? and yet doesn’t marginally answer the question. First, we should ask the real question: What should a good American conservative stand for? Then add a list. You may or may not agree with items on the list, but it should be fairly binary, such as: + Limits on government / responsibility of the individual to run his or her life + A balanced budget + Integrity in life and politics + A principle-based program as compared to an emotional, mob-based one. + Adherence to the Constitution Those are just five off the top of my head. You can get more fine-grained (and should) and include things such as “Opposed to abortion.” And, more generally, “Opposed to whatever the Left and the Democrats are offering.” Jonah can’t seem to do that. He can only ever tell us in some fuzzy way what conservatives aren’t doing right…while offering zero clear vision of what an American conservative should be.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jan 27, 2020 9:43:01 GMT -8
You know that the writer is lying when presenting such formulations. Those at NRO are becoming more openly dishonest in their pronouncements. At least, I don't think they have passed over to insanity, yet.
Clearly, you have not reached the degree of sophistication required to join the likes of Goldberg in their disdain for the hoi polloi who populate the conservative base.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 27, 2020 9:50:33 GMT -8
I think one reason people hate Trump is because he is bold when they are milquetoast.
On another subject, I was watching a rather course and crude Netflix show titled “The Witcher.” I don’t recommend it. But I have a friend who likes it and we can spend some time together that way.
Well, in one episode the Witcher uses a wish that he gets from a Genie he had released. The Witcher was in prison and the guy who put him there had progressed to basically beating the hell out of him. The Witcher (not realizing he had these wishes…it’s a long and boring story) says “I wish you would explode.” Just then his tormentor’s head explodes.
I asked, “I wonder what I would do if I had three wishes?” My friend popped-off “I would make Trump’s head explode.”
Not the leader of Al-Aqeda’s head. Not some child rapist’s head. Not the head of a cruel dictator somewhere in the world but Trump’s head.
I don’t get that. I know it’s some form of projection due to internal torment of some kind. But, still, I don’t get that.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jan 27, 2020 10:02:47 GMT -8
This is where you are much more polite than I. I would have gone at the man. Perhaps that is also why you certainly have more friends and acquaintances than I.
Who said, "You can never underestimate the tastes of the American public"? I think it was P.T. Barnum.
The world is full of illiterate idiots without a smidgen of imagination or morality.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Jan 27, 2020 10:28:05 GMT -8
This is the consequence of purely emotional responses. There is no rational case for declaring Trump to be worse than any number of dictators or mass killers. But he enrages leftists by standing up to them (and also mocking them), which is what they find worst.
It's like Adam Schiffless calling Trump a dictator. If he were, Schiffless, Nagger, and their fellow managers would already have disappeared into the Night and Fog they (and especially their activist base voters) want to put us in. Nor would all Trump's immigrant orders have been halted by leftist activist district judges imposing nationwide injunctions.
But that's how they feel, and that's what counts. They feel that Trump is the worst person in the world, and that he's an absolute dictator (not that he wants to be, but that he actually is), and that guns are icky and only exist to help bad guys kill the rest of us, and that unborn babies with functioning brains and hearts and on the verge of birth are merely parts of the mother that she can slough off if she feels like it.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 27, 2020 10:33:36 GMT -8
Mr. Kung, I’m not sure if it was apathy or wisdom that caused me to just let stupid dogs lie.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 27, 2020 10:37:13 GMT -8
One would think he would receive at least some credit for not being Hillary Clinton or for energy independence. And speaking of heads exploding, a prime candidate would be the dictator in North Korea. His head is pretty big as it is and it might take only half a wish.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Jan 27, 2020 10:39:06 GMT -8
As best I can tell, Goldberg gives a general answer to the question of what a conservative is. It's good enough in its way -- he's a skilled writer. But he certainly doesn't come up with any specific ideas, as Brad does. It no doubt helps that most or all of us here probably agree with Brad's suggestions in this case.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 27, 2020 11:02:45 GMT -8
I found his answers to be uselessly esoteric and theoretical. He writes:
Is he for or against fracking? Abortion? Entitlements? Political correctness? The Gender Gestapo?
Much like the dishonest (or just confused) Kevin Williamson, he uses exceptions to try say something. I’m not for the public education system given where it is now. But I am for mandated education. It’s good for people and it’s good for society and is much preferred to ignorance.
How shall that be achieved? That is the question not these ridiculous esoteric musings that decide nothing and clarify nothing.
Huh? Does that make you for the policies of San Francisco regarding the “homeless” or against them?
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 27, 2020 11:30:42 GMT -8
One could say that as a writer I have a utopian goal of being clear and concise.
Prevarication may be a matter of simply trying to make one’s daily word count obligation to an editor. But I think in almost all cases — apart from it being about an honest grappling with the truth (inexact knowledge will necessarily lead to sloppy writing) — prevarication and word salad are about deceit and/or playing it safe.
Actually being for or against something in a clear way is not going to please all your readers.
And never discount smugness and the human ego, the desire to sound erudite. One can do that and it’s remarkable how many people swallow the baloney.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Jan 27, 2020 11:34:12 GMT -8
Those are good questions, and I suspect Goldberg doesn't want to answer them lest he find himself forced to agree with someone he doesn't like. In the case of Scat Francisco's problems, that's probably true no matter which side he prefers.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,261
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jan 27, 2020 11:39:04 GMT -8
One commenter of the article exposes himself wonderfully regarding the desire to hide in the general to not have to commit to the specific:
I’m against abortion because it is depriving one of the most basic of rights: life. That is a specific view born of an overall view. It’s fine, and definitely necessary, to have overall views, a general philosophy. And being against abortion is a core policy of so-called “cultural conservatives” who might better be viewed as: People who put conservative principles into action.
When you see people spouting general philosophy, get out your turd detector because you’re likely about to step in something. Either it is a muddled-headed thinker, a coward, or perhaps both.
We can agree or disagree about abortion and all sorts of things. But only a nitwit or rube would announce that the “cultural conservatives” are those fellows over there who are disconnected from the Constitution while we “real” conservatives are bound to it…but just don’t ask us specifically what we are for or against. But we sure have file miles of high-sounding philosophy to show you.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jan 27, 2020 11:59:34 GMT -8
Or a libertarian. Oh wait, I am being redundant.
|
|