Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Lowering Standards

After following me into the blogosphere, the boys over at Too Conservative now have a contributor who is banging the drum for homo marriage.

She's started two threads on the subject.

Can someone explain to me how changing the fundamental institution of civilized society is "conservative"?

UPDATE: Pursuant to TC's comment, I have changed the references to neocon22's sex.

15 comments:

Mitch Cumstein said...

Jim, I'd like to make a couple of points here:

First, I don't know who Neocon22 is, but I think he's certainly entitled to his opinion, as are you. The title of our blog, "Too Conservative," has an interesting background in terms of why the creators chose to call it that. As you are certainly well aware, I don't consider myself to be "too conservative" on much of anything. Some of the other contributors are, and yet they've allowed and even invited me to offer different and often opposing viewpoints. I don't think it's fair to suggest that Neoconn22 represents the majority of contributors at Too Conservative, in much the same way that someone like Steve Sisson doesn't represent everyone over at Bacon's Rebellion. In truth, he's probably in the minority at TC.

My position, as stated at TC, is that this issue should be pretty low on the totem pole in terms of priorities. Quite frankly, I really don't care about it one way or the other and would prefer that our government focus on more important issues.

And, as far as following you into the blogoshpere? The truth is I'd been commenting at other blogs long before I found yours. I like your blog, appreciate your viewpoints on some issues and enjoy arguing with you on others. But I didn't follow you into this.

James Young said...

Mitch, I'll respond with a couple of points.

First, thanks for the motherhood. Whether neocon22 is "entitled to his opinion" has little or nothing to do with the fact that his opinion is ill-informed, his logic is faulty, and his position is not, by any measure of the term "conservative."

Second, I didn't "suggest that Neoconn22 represents the majority of contributors at Too Conservative"; at most, I "suggested" that you were lowering standards (standards which, I believe, elevated over time) by permitting him to participate as a contributor. That's a judgment (or "opinion") that I'm certainly entitled to, as well.

Third, just like some callers to talk radio, many of my most vocal critics of my column were motivated by jealousy: jealousy over the influence that I had that they lacked. But this comment wasn't directed at you, particularly. Methinks you doth protesteth too much.

too conservative said...

he is a she.

James Young said...

I stand corrected.... as to the sex of neocon22

Riley, Not O'Reilly said...

Shocked the hell out of me when I saw those posts myself. First, I didn't know we had a new contributor and second, I didn't see any impetus for such posts. At least tie it in with one of the new lawsuits going on in MA over this issue to make it relevant to current events.

Anonymous said...

"many of my most vocal critics of my column were motivated by jealousy"

Yeah... keep believing that one Jimmie.

James Young said...

I knew there was some sanity over there, Jim. You merely reconfirm it.

And Coward 10:26 --- A weasel who carps while hiding behind a cloak of anonymity kinda makes my point.

BTW, my son's name is Jimmy. "Jimmie" is not an appropriate spelling of the name. My friends call me Jim, or James. And none of them are the kind of cowards who won't attach their names to their disagreements.

NoVA Scout said...

The beast of jealousy is indeed destructive. I know that many of my objections to James's posts and comments on other blogs are (while couched in covering terms of concerns about intemperate language, galumphing logic leaps, and overly quick inclinations to impute bad faith) in fact motivated by sheer petulant envy of the vast sweep of the man's influence. One can hardly stroll through the bustling sidewalks of Dumfries without hearing quotations from 5 year old columns on every lip, the name "James Young" recited with awe by young and old alike. Indeed, were it not for the retiring modesty of the man, his devotion to hearth and home, his noblesse oblige instincts to let others have a chance, his concern about the tidiness of his yard (remember Cincinnatus and his Lawn Boy?), Jame long ago would have been elevated by acclamation to the highest positions of authority in his community, the Commonwealth, and the Nation. The creaky school board candidacy, the tumultuous YR tilts, the seeming rants out of all proportion to the provocation are merely decoys to disguise the luminous greatness of the man. We are fortunate to live in these times with him. And I am small, small indeed, a Lilliputian among Brobingdangians (how the hell do you spell that?) to feel such jealously at an immense influence that radiates from the Chopawamsic to the Occoquan and beyond.

neocon22 said...

the fact that my intellect and credibitly have been attacked over a post that i wrote that had the issue of gay marriage tacked on at the end simply to demonstrate my disillusion and frustration of federal officials has shown that there is merit to the opinion that conservatives are all angry and mean. this is absolutely ridiculous and shows why the republican party is in the current state of disarray. why can there not be an open dialogue without being branded a squish.

neocon22 said...

Also, i am not banging the drum for gay marriage. i am simply questioning why bang the drum against it. my point is that senate and house republicans use it to rally their base during election seasons when they dont have any real results to show for. a true conservative subscribes to the belief that the federal govt's only job is to defend the rights of its citizens, and also believes that issues such as this one should be left to the states.

James Young said...

Gee, nova scout, why would anyone impute bad faith to someone posting something as peurile as your last?

It's always impressive when someone belittles your (former, and apparently continuing (after all, he or she is here and apparently can't resist the urge to respond/belittle me)) influence as weekly published columnist (say what you will --- I certainly never said anything like you did --- but I was read), particularly when it's someone with so little regard for it and so obviously correct that I am nothing more than a pimple on a flea that he finds it necessary to cower in anonymity.

As to neocon22, I didn't attack your "intellect and credibitly," I said your "opinion is ill-informed, [your] logic is faulty, and [your] position is not, by any measure of the term 'conservative.'" If you think that someone responding to such a post demonstrates "that there is merit to the opinion that conservative are all angry and mean," then I would strongly suggest that you lack the stomach for political discourse. As Harry Truman -- another Liberal -- once observed, "If you can't stand the head, get out of the kitchen." Dismissing anyone who dissects your position as "angry and mean" is simply an excuse to avoid defending it, probably because you cannot. You simply repeat the same nonsense or, put another way, "bang[] the drum" against anyone who stands against homo "marriage."

And I've already answered your question, "Why bang the drum against it?" To-wit, because societal nihilists are banging the drum for it. In response, you attack the messenger, probably because you don't like the message. You then proceed to wrongly assert that "the federal govt's only job is to defend the rights of its citizens" (I would refer you to the Constitution's Preamble in rebuttal) and note that the only reason "issues such as this one" are not able to "be left to the states" is because adherents to the radical homosexual agenda are asking the federal courts to create out of whole cloth some "right" which doesn't exist and has never existed. "True conservatives" are those who believe that it should not be created; true Liberals are legal positivists who believe that the courts can/should be allowed to create such pseudo-"rights."

neocon22 said...

you said that i endorsed perversion. this is inappropriate and shows you have no understanding of my perspective. that perspective is one that we are a federalist country where the fed gov's job is to protect our rights and defend the homeland. i believe it should be left to the states. this is not wrong or illogical, but simply a different interpretation of our Constitution and i should not be berated for it.

NoVA Scout said...

"puerile"? You make me feel so young (small "y"). Actually I thought it was better than boyish, but I confess I was having some fun with words at your expense. Your "jealousy over influence" line just tickled me and I couldn't resist.

But we do agree on Davis Bacon. That's something. Mickey Kaus at Slate recently had a good post on that which I heartily recommend.

James Young said...

Well, nova scout, you really need to face reality on the point. Your comments suggest your identity (I would guess Frank March, Sarah Berry March, or Jim Caddigan), but I could easily be wrong on that point. But I'm gratified that you concede the immaturity of your comment.

I agree that Kaus is right; the queswtion of whether it is a function of logic or the stopped clocck (right twice a day) remains open.

NoVA Scout said...

I only concede that "puerile", however spelled, means "boyish" or "childish" (you no doubt have shared my wonder that we have the word "puerile" but not the corresponding feminine cognate of "puella") and that my chronological age puts me in a position where an occasional boyish or childish moment is not such a bad thing. Besides, Virginia politics really does make virtually everything seem childish. I offer that as a non-partisan statement, despite my burnished Republican credentials.