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.
10 comments:
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.
I stand corrected.... as to the sex of neocon22
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.
"many of my most vocal critics of my column were motivated by jealousy"
Yeah... keep believing that one Jimmie.
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.
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.
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."
"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.
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.
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.
Post a Comment