The questions. The answers. The lazy and uninspired.
Until this, I was on Christopher Buckley's side.
In fact, the only thing the Right can’t quite decide is whether I should be boiled in oil or just put up against the wall and shot."The Right" isn't a group of disgruntled e-mailers making death threats. I mean, there are sensible people among the Right, like, you know, the editors of National Review. If you're going to label political movements by the tone of e-mails you get from the more sociopathic, well, Right and Left should both probably be institutionalized (quiet, Freiheit). I thought this comment went beyond exaggeration.
One editor at National Review—a friend of 30 years—emailed me that he thought my opinions “cretinous.”Have you seen the fights John Derbyshire gets into? How about Andy McCarthy and Jonathan Adler's public snark-filled feud just two days ago? Newsflash - the editors of National Review disagree with each other, sometimes fundamentally. John Derbyshire's still writing regularly for it even though he's bashed religion and religious people mercilessly in The Corner.
Within hours of my endorsement appearing in The Daily Beast it became clear that National Review had a serious problem on its hands. So the next morning, I thought the only decent thing to do would be to offer to resign my column there. This offer was accepted—rather briskly!—by Rich Lowry, NR’s editor, and its publisher, the superb and able and fine Jack Fowler. I retain the fondest feelings for the magazine that my father founded, but I will admit to a certain sadness that an act of publishing a reasoned argument for the opposition should result in acrimony and disavowal.I'm not sure how much of a problem NR really had. Remember John Derbyshire? How does he still write for a magazine founded by a Catholic and steeped in conservative Catholic ideology? Somehow, he manages to do it, Christopher! People tolerated a lot of disagreeable things from WFB's pen because his columns were so well reasoned that, despite their refusal to toe the party line, they made the reader think. I felt exactly that way about Christopher Buckley many times. I approached his endorsement of Obama in the same light. But then he tried to paint his (voluntary!) exit from NR as a retreat from an oppressive, vociferous group of fanatics burning the house (NR) to roast the pig (Buckley the Younger). This seems to be the result of an overreaction on his part.
So, I have been effectively fatwahed (is that how you spell it?) by the conservative movement, and the magazine that my father founded must now distance itself from me.Again, besides the distasteful hyperbole, this is disingenuous. I've heard nothing to suggest that Buckley did anything but quit.
But then, conservatives have always had a bit of trouble with the concept of diversity. The GOP likes to say it’s a big-tent. Looks more like a yurt to me.Another low-blow.
Eight years of “conservative” government has brought us a doubled national debt, ruinous expansion of entitlement programs, bridges to nowhere, poster boy Jack Abramoff and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of breathtaking arrogance.The contradiction exists only if you think George W. Bush is a conservative. But he's not. He ran as a moderate and he has governed as a moderate. That's the problem. And if you're so damned concerned about entitlement programs, how the hell does voting for Obama make sense? No, as intelligent as Buckley surely is, this is just stupid. Even, frankly, cretinous. "The past eight years have seen too much corruption and a staggering increase in the federal bureaucracy - let's elect a shady Chicago-machine Democrat with the most liberal voting record of any U.S. senator. That logic doesn't hold in any possible world.
I just saw Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes for the first time. It wasn't a Conan Doyle Holmes story, but an original wartime fool-the-Nazis thriller - Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon. It was sort of neat, but very corny. Nigel Bruce must be responsible for people's thinking Watson was a buffoon.
So, for some reason, ESPN has this segment during Sportscenter called "ESPN Deportes". During this segment, some heavily-accented woman will talk about worthless sports like boxing, soccer, and baseball, mixing English words with Spanish names. That's fact one.
You may have heard that this economic crisis (or meltdown, or whatever cliche it's being called) is the result of "cowboy capitalism" or "laissez-faire run amok" or "Anglo-Saxon economic liberty" (which makes no sense, right? But I did that yesterday). Well, I thought I would refute that with the magic of photography.
I've heard a lot of people saying "Anglo-Saxon" when they mean "Anglo-American." At least, I think I'm not insane, and that "Anglo-American" is really the way to say it. Otherwise, why not just say "Anglo" and avoid the extra work? Especially when speaking of a certain school of political theory, I'm pretty sure you want to be referring to the two most important exhibitors of that kind of political thought, and not refer to the ethnicity of the inhabitants of the British Isles.
Oddly Enough: Still nonsensical.
The Supreme Court has decided.
The petition for rehearing is denied.The "we're still right" position will be effected simply by modifying the deficient original opinions (Opinion of the Court and dissenting opinion) very slightly to note that, indeed, there is a law that demolishes the foundation of the majority's holding, but no one cares.
I am voting against the petition for rehearing because the views of the American people on the death penalty for child rape were, to tell the truth, irrelevant to the majority’s decision in this case.In other words, why waste the time? The result was set even before the original briefs and oral argument; why conduct the farce again?