Tuesday, January 5, 2010

From the Comments

Well, things are getting back to normal business (and busy-ness) after the long holiday break. But my blogging schedule has been thrown off. I'm going to try to get my New Year's hiking post up this morning or early afternoon. But I've got a dental appointment at 11:00, and I've got to get my little guy ready for school right now. I haven't even read the paper yet, or checked the headlines at Memeorandum or RealClearPolitics.

I did see the comments some readers have left at the blog, anonymous comments, or pseudonymous in the case of the second one. The first one's
attacking me for my alleged hypocrisy:

If u are married with children - do you think it is appropriate to go around talking about how hot other women are all the time? Your blog is full of drooling over how hot women on TV are. Why don't you stop fawning over actors and fake celebrities and pay more attention to reality. Where are your "Christian" morals? Or are you just a typical male hypocrite, a common politician , another talking head on TV preaching how others should live their lives?
The second one is from "Suzie Q," which is the nom de plume of a paleocon reader who spews the same old neo-isolationist (anti-American) talking points as Daniel Larison and the airheads over at Conservative Heritage. I'd bet Suzie Q is in fact a sockpuppet for one of the writers there, Old Rebel, or just could be some spineless lurker who likes taking pot shots from the shadows. In any case, here's Suzie Q's remark (in response to this post):

Donald, thank you for quoting me and beginning a discussion on the matter. I sincerely believe you've been brainwashed. I think you're wonderful on many fronts, but all anyone has to do is say, "Al Qaeda!" and it's like Pavlov ringing the bell. Neocons salivate and say, "Grow the Government! Give up our liberties! It's for 'freedom'!" Uh-huh. Right. Ummmmm... please slow down and re-evaluate the logic. The Patriot Act preserves no liberty - and provides security for the Government against conservatives, patriots, veterans, pro-lifers, and anyone who doesn't agree with statism. The Patriot Act really isn't "about" protecting us from "Al Qaeda". The Patriot Act is about statists gaining power over... conservatives. (And I'm still waiting for conservatives to stop salivating and taking the bait every time statists say, "Al Qaeda!") You see, Donald, it's a matter of PRINCIPLE. The Bill of Rights cannot be "negotiable" in the threat of a "terrorist" - or like Hitler found necessity to propagandize to create the Jew as an object of fear... the statists today find necessity to propagandaize to create "Al Qaeda" as an object of fear. SS - DHS... same difference... same pattern... same program... and I pray conservatives wake up before the knock comes to their door. Love ya, Donald, but what's it going to take to "just say no" to the DHS??
Okay, first to "anonymous." Normally anonymous comments are deleted, since I don't like responding to a non-entity, and it's generally cowardly to attack someone while being unwilling to face them publically (although butt freak E.D. Kain's recent workplace intimidation campaign makes me much more sympathetic to serious bloggers who remain anonymous).

(1) No, I don't think it's inappropriate to "drool" over "fake" celebrities. If you don't like my fawning, don't read the blog. (2) My Christian morals are where they've always been, at the center of my being and the grounding of my goodness. And can I ask you, when have I ever attacked anyone for looking at pictures of beautiful women, or for writing movie reviews of fabulous actresses like
Penélope Cruz? (Even communist Spencer Ackerman's entitled to a good cleavage shot once in a while). Being Christian hardly requires that one adopt monastic asceticism. Life is what it is, and human sexuality is God-given. The key is how I conduct my own life, and for the record, that includes marital fidelity to my wife. So again, go somewhere else if you're not happy here. Frankly, this particular attack on my "hypocrisy" is hardly the first, and wholly unoriginal. I'm indulging here since I need something to write about while drinking my coffee and while my kid's having his cereal. Check back again after my next attack on Mark Sanford, or some other cheating asshole, which will be never, since I don't generally deal with them politically. (And Tiger Woods is basically open season. If ever there was epic moral fail, he's it, and Brit Hume's absolutely right that he could use a little Christian goodness.) In any case, I'd be lying if I said I never had "lust in my heart" for another woman. The real moral key is the ability to reign it in (more on that, relatedly, here, here, and here).

Now, for Suzie Q, well, that's a little more substantive, and I imagine I'll have more to say about it later. It'd be somewhere along the lines of "
The Constitution is not a suicide pact." I rarely if ever write about the Patriot Act, and in any case, the law kept us safer, and there's no gainsaying the Bush administration's efforts to keep the country secure. The fact is, Dick Cheney packs hundreds of times the moral clarity on the tip of his pinky than the entire Obama administration combined.

In any case, Suzie Q and her ilk are civil libertarian absolutists. By attacking any and all exertions of forward American power they join in with the nihilist leftists out to destroy the nation. That's why I can't stand either of them. We have real threats facing this country. We'll have more Fort Hoods and Flight 253s, precisely because we're so paralyzed with actually mobilizing the nation to prevent them. And Obama's hardly alone in this. See, "The West is Choked by Fear."


Philippe Öhlund said...

Brilliant post, Donald! :-)

The love of what is beautiful in life - including lovely women - is a question of culture and civilization.

There are many different kind of beauties.

Some people are beautiful souls by their kindness.

Then we are amazed of outstanding minds.

And successful entrepreneurs like Bill Gates and Warren Bufett have our full admiration.

But beautiful women with great bodies should not be neglected.

We see pictures of Obama, Ben Laden, and Larry King everywhere.

I'm happy to see beautiful women on your blog Donald! :-)

Old Rebel said...

Americaneocon wrote:

By attacking any and all exertions of forward American power they join in with the nihilist leftists out to destroy the nation. That's why I can't stand either of them. We have real threats facing this country. We'll have more Fort Hoods and Flight 253s, precisely because we're so paralyzed with actually mobilizing the nation to prevent them.

Wrong. Fort Hood occurred precisely because of the two things I most adamantly oppose: Aggressive wars launched in the name of world-wide liberation, and Open Borders.

The murderer Hasan once stated in a presentation, "It’s getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims."

He also listed his nationality as “Palestinian” despite having been born in Virginia.

Like the UndieBomber, Hasan was enraged by what both saw as America's wars against Muslims.

Philippe Öhlund said...

Warren Buffett should be spelled with two fs of course.

AmPowerBlog said...

Perfect blame-America regurgitation, Old Rebel!

Old Rebel said...

Donald Douglas,

Opposing policies that gets innocent Americans killed is "anti-American"?

Please explain.

Laura Lee - Grace Explosion said...

Hi Donald,

I chuckle at being included with "nihilists" as "destroyers of America". The greatest danger and threat to the safety and security of any people has always been its own government. Please check to see how many 100's of millions have been murdered by their communist and dictatorial governments in the last century - and tell me again that the neocon position is "protecting Americans". If anyone is truly "unAmerican" - it's a nihilist, a statist, or a neocon (same difference at this level) growing the government as irresponsibly as feeding a gremlin after midnight. That government is growing teeth, fangs, and sharp claws - and the knock at the door is much more dangerous than even a bomb on any plane.

But, as I say, I very much appreciate you in general and trust you'll see the light. (And pray it is NOT the "light" cracking through a burst open door as the stormtroopers break in with government AK47s pointed at the heads of you, your wife, and your children as you lie innocently in your beds at dawn thinking, "I never thought this could happen in the USA"...")

I appreciate your blogging. Best wishes for a prosperous and breakthrough journalistic year.

Laura Lee - Grace Explosion said...

I think the moral clarity of the pinky of Dick Cheney is revealed as his pinky is shoved up his arse. That's the true picture of the "moral clarity" of Dick Cheney.

Dick Cheney is one of the most immoral pigs to ever infiltrate the government of the USA.

He's a Haliburton pimp prostituting America for his own financial gain.

He can shove his pinky up his arse as far as I'm concerned.

Moral clarity??

Love of $$$ - that's the "moral clarity" of Dick "the pimp" Cheney.

Philippe Öhlund said...

Hi Suzie Q! :-)

Are you a singer?

You said: "The greatest danger and threat to the safety and security of any people has always been its own government".

I can agree to some extent with what you're saying.

This also means you basically have a conservative attitude like I have.

I think there is a big difference between our more or less socialist states in Europe, and the more conservative America.

Our problem is that the public sector in European countries usually is too powerful, whereas the private sector in conservative America is dominant.

Our own government, whether we live in America or in Europe will always be our biggest foe.

This is one of the reasons I believe in capitalism and in conservatism.

In a conservative country you will also have a centralized government, which always will be needed.

But the government in a conservative country will be weaker than the government of a socialist country, and therefore it will have to listen to and respect its citizens at a deeper level.

This means more freedom and a better managed country, where the citizens have more to say.

The main objective of any government is to bully you around and to steal all your money.

Therefore it is important the government never gets too strong.

courtneyme109 said...

Suzie Q - the divine avatar of daemoneoconservatism taught that "Neocons would prefer not to have large budget deficits, but it is in the nature of democracy--because it seems to be in the nature of human nature--that political demagogy will frequently result in economic recklessness, so that one sometimes must shoulder budgetary deficits as the cost (temporary, one hopes) of pursuing economic growth.

"It is a basic assumption of neoconservatism that, as a consequence of the spread of affluence among all classes, a property-owning and tax-paying population will, in time, become less vulnerable to egalitarian illusions and demagogic appeals and more sensible about the fundamentals of economic reckoning.

This leads to the issue of the role of the state. Neocons do not like the concentration of services in the welfare state and are happy to study alternative ways of delivering these services. But they are impatient with the Hayekian notion that we are on "the road to serfdom."

Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable. Because they tend to be more interested in history than economics or sociology, they know that the 19th-century idea, so neatly propounded by Herbert Spencer in his "The Man Versus the State," was a historical eccentricity.

People have always preferred strong government to weak government, although they certainly have no liking for anything that smacks of overly intrusive government. Neocons feel at home in today's America to a degree that more traditional conservatives do not. Though they find much to be critical about, they tend to seek intellectual guidance in the democratic wisdom of Tocqueville, rather than in the Tory nostalgia of, say, Russell Kirk.


courtneyme109 said...

Old Rebel's risible forever quest for an exit strategy to return to the confauxderate ideal of 1810 is hurtfully unhelpful:

neocons traditionally believe:

1) This future is worth pursuing because it represents genuine historical progress in the de-escalation of mass violence

2) This problem-set is boundable and easily described as a grand historical arc of ever-retreating resistance to the spread of democracy, fun, free choice with the global economy, and

3) The sequencing of the regional tasks involved is of our own choosing.

Simply put, Great Satan couldn't withdraw from the world even if she wanted to. Might as well apply robust American Power in any and all situations - soft power, smart powr, hard power or coercive diplomacy to change the nature of regimes - or regime change them.

Their choice.

Old Rebel said...


Yes, Virginia, if you see it in the Weekly Standard, it must be so.

Actually, it's rather telling how you use language such as "genuine historical progress" and "a grand historical arc of ever-retreating resistance to the spread of democracy." Marxist determinism isn't dead; it thrives in college dorm chatter and white papers from the American Enterprise Institute.

As much fun as it is cheering on distant carnage, there's an end to it all when the bills start coming due. Then Great Satan will collapse, as all over-extended empires eventually do.

That's an historical fact. You could look it up.