The Atlantic Monthly's
Conor Friedersdorf recently said, "the civil war the right needs is one waged
against the hucksters, whether they're in the marketplace of ideas or the marketplace itself." I guess - considering
TMR's mandate is to fight hucksterism - that means I have to fire the first shot.
Here goes nothing.
It has long been said that life was
"solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Congratulations - through the wonders of modern technology - they've made it
longer. From Glenn Reynolds'
Instapundit:
MICKEY KAUS: Will MSM Guilt Start Working for Mitt? “‘Like Ali, Obama Floats Like a Butterfly’–that’s the headline Real Clear Politics gave Howard Fineman’s latest post. But even though Fineman is Editorial Director for leftish Huffington Post (and appears regularly on MSNBC) his piece isn’t what you’d expect. It’s basically a plea to the MSM to start covering Obama they way they’d cover a normal candidate. . . . An MSM veteran, Fineman, in essence, is agreeing with conservative critics of his profession: they’ve been cutting the President way too much slack, failing to take him to task in areas (the Woodward portrayal, Libya, the jobs numbers ) where they would have hammered another candidate.”
Notice there's
no concern from these champions of justice that the MSM -
or the conservative blogosphere - have been cutting
Romney "way too much slack, failing to take him to task in areas where they would have hammered another candidate"? That it's all
a one-way street with these guys who've positioned themselves as the trustworthy alternative to the biased media?
Mitt Romney spouts complete nonsense? His cult
punishes those who reveal their "secrets" or is
practicing voter fraud? That they're
behaving like delusional Pat Robertson supporters in order to win? You'll never hear it from Glenn Reynolds, Mickey Kaus, Michelle Malkin, Robert Stacey McCain, Ann Althouse, the folks at
Hot Air, Ace of Spades, - or even the reporters for
The Washington Examiner - but can expect to, probably, be punished by a collective cry of "bigotry" (from them
and the Romney campaign) for saying so instead.
I hold to a pretty hard ethical line (which I've defined as "not goody-goody, but just good") and it gets me in a world of trouble, online, that - if I didn't know I now live in a NewAge-obsessed-and-influenced society - I wouldn't understand at all.
But
I do understand the times I live in, so (despite my occasional shock at the behavior of
those under NewAge's spell) the cowardly treatment I get for, both, wanting to be correct in my assessments - while also wanting to be moral - have, unfortunately, become known to me as par for the course:
I can be ridiculously outnumbered, and I will be forced to fight alone.
In
this NewAge society, these virtues - including the willingness to fight on despite overwhelming obstacles - are not appreciated. Instead, to NewAgers, they are signs of madness.
Don't I understand that
being right doesn't matter? The law professor, NewAger - and my friend - Ann Althouse, once said that my desire to be seen as correct "all the time" was ugly - and, to prove it,
she continues to promote the idea that "inaccuracies and distortions" are "what is beautiful and wonderful about human life." Really?
She and her blog partner,
Glenn Reynolds, have long engaged in the practice of
"punishing with traffic starvation" those they deem unworthy, while appearing to encourage the free flow of ideas and letting water find it's own level. Why? Because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, nothing more. Their sycophants (and that's what they are) will say nothing, which - just as we saw with Adolf Hitler -
allows Althouse and Reynolds not to dare reflect on their behavior. Who cares if they're distorting the flow of information? After all, "inaccuracies and distortions" are "what is beautiful and wonderful about human life," right?
Isn't it bizarre that
The Wall Street Journal's blogger, James Taranto - who was once a seemingly-fair and intelligent man - will now criticize
Madonna and Obama but it's left to the supposedly biased
FOX News to say
"Mitt Romney's Gaffes Are Needlessly Weakening Him"?
Has even an editor for The Wall Street Journal forgotten what being an American stands for?
Like Conor Friedersdorf,
I Refuse to Vote for Barack Obama. But I also refuse to stand with those who lie, distort, and mistreat anyone who demands there's a role for truth - not just in our politics but in our lives. For the last four years, we - those of us who make up the right side of the blogosphere - are supposed to have been the citizens of these United States, taking back our nation, by re-affirming the values that made this country great. Well I, for one, see no evidence of that having happened. Instead (since the death of Andrew Breitbart, really) there has been an ugly switch from understanding and utilizing the Left's tactics to - and, the Mormon cult follower, Mitt Romney's nomination can be no better example of this -
becoming what they've always hated.
The Stupid Party. The Hypocrite Party. The Magic Party. The Secret's Party.
I know something about these things.
Ladies and Gentlemen, this is TMR, and I am The Crack Emcee.
And I want it to be known, here and now:
This is what I've hated. I've hated it all along. I'll always hate it. And I hate it now more than ever.
All of it.
No matter who's promoting it.
Wouldn't this be interesting...
ReplyDeleteMaybe that private screening of The Master paid off? Or maybe having two wives leave him over that BSC cult he belongs to.
As far as LDS goes, I am not a member and I am not going to become a member. I am pretty sure Romney is not intending to institute a theorcracy. But if he does, I will man the baricades with you.
ReplyDeleteOf course we also have Obama and his cadre Communist upbringing by his mom and Frank Marshall Davis.
It is really binary. Which is better for the country? More Obama or less. Obama vs. Romney? I come down to Romney is better.
Like Obama, Romney would not have to institute a theocracy, but he would (given his past track record and that of his church) give his religion of choice a huge helping hand (as has been well chronicled here concerning the nutraceutical business and MLMs (there are other things as well: like agri business, land development, water/mineral rights that his church would stand to greatly benefit from a more friendly legislative (and judicial! let's not forget this important facet of things) environment (although Harry Reid has been more involved in that area than Mitt, still, they do have a common denominator, those two).
ReplyDeleteAnd none of this would necessarily benefit the country or our people -- because it would be geared to only benefiting one religion, possibly at the expense of everyone else (and here is where it pays to do some deep and critical reading of that religion: Joe Smith's church was constructed to be of a very socialist nature, moreso than the mainline churches have ever been -- for all their apple pie, the Mormons belong to a church that espouses a very collectivist society at the bottom and a very hierarchal society at the top; symbols say a lot: one of theirs is the beehive...perhaps it's time to crack open a natural history and learn about the society of bees).
There is no lesser of two evils here; there really is not much difference (other than one has a track record as president now).
PW
-- and do we continue to serve this bullshit, or do we finally understand and love truth, beauty, and freedom? Nature is flawed, art is flawed due to nature -- but the true artists and builder accepts that and yet still insists on the truth as much as can be attained; the artist doesn't accept cheating in the form of shortcuts, copies, or frauds, thus true beauty is likely to come about and stay for a long time rather than something that turns ugly and crumbles. Societies and their creation/maintenance are a work of art/craft -- what sort of society do we want?
And I'll say this: Republicans/conservatives should be (should have been) far more focused on the House and Senate, on the governorships and judiciary; get the best people possible in those positions and forget the presidency this one time (after they just insisted on Mitt) -- it was not that important. In that case at least the bases would be covered no matter what happens.
ReplyDeleteInstead, not only is Mitt a walking, talking disaster for himself, but he's taking down and sucking the air out of every GOP campaign this year...so now either the GOP can take the hit this year (because they had to go with Mitt), regroup and hopefully hold on to the gains they have in the state houses and on Capitol Hill (I'm past the point of hoping for any great pick ups) and then aim at the midterms and '16...or they can continue to go down with the Mittanic (at this point I'm not sure he'll win anyway, and if he did there is no assurance he wouldn't cause a screaming debacle).
He and his little buddies in the punditry are making it so the GOP will not be able to hold its ground as the party of opposition to the Dems; they are helping to destroy the party and leaving the country at the mercy of the Dems (who were having their own issues that could have been exploited this go 'round, but oh no)....but they are the pure and patriotic ones...they are the "be Breitbart!" crowd after all; the tough, strong moral warriors for our country.
Words cannot describe the level of disgust I have for these people now; they play their stupid little personal games ahead of the best interests of the nation and their countrymen, and then they have the gaul to parade around demanding to be called "true patriots". spit, I spit on them!
PW