December 18, 2007 - December 11, 2007
Thursday, November 09, 2006
There's a curious thing about reason. It almost always seems
reasonable, especially to its most ardent practitioners, but when it's
unhooked from common sense, it tends to float off into detached
self-absorption, which provides its own immunity against criticism of
any kind, practical verities, and, yes, common sense.
In the process, it somehow turns
reason into its opposite -- from a logical progression toward the right
answer to a mere mechanism of rhetorical condescension.
Glenn Reynolds has abundantly documented the pilgrimage of Andrew
Sullivan along this path, heh-ing, for example, over the
fact that Sullivan's sense of his intellectual gravitas
entitles him to review his
own book in the most glowing terms while scorning all so-called
conservatives who dare to challenge his intellectual and educational
superiority. Never mind that even the most casual observer can chart
Sullivan's course to Bush hatred from the first instance of the
administration's opposition to gay marriage.
I have long believed it one of the saddest aspects of American life
that lawyers have so dominated our political life, because legal
education is expressly designed to separate reason from common sense,
to camouflage ordinary, obvious reality via the pyrotechnics of
semantically acrobatic somersaults until the plain facts are rendered
bizarre, stood on their heads in a disorienting contortionist's pose.
Then it is that the oh-so-rational attorney drily informs us that there
are no plain facts except for the ones he chooses to present in his
summation. In fact, his real triumph is to substitute himself and his
appearance of rationality for common sense.
This is the means by which we journeyed from Martin Luther King's
color-blind dream to a Kafka-esque oxymoron of equality achieved by
dizzying amounts and degrees of racial discrimination peddled under the
rational sobriquet 'affirmative action.' It's how we progressed from
the basic moral requirement to be fair to others even if they're
different to the latest incarnation of 'poliical correctness' --
blaming ourselves for all the ways we are different from those who view
those differences as a reason to annihilate us. It is this exquisite
brand of reason that transmutes tolerance to a self-hating death wish.
Interestingly, the mechanism by which this sleight of hand is
accomplished is not actually reason, but the air of detached
objectivity and farsightedness affected by those who presume to know.
And now I am about to commit an unpardonable, irrational sin of the
contemporary Internet. I'm going to criticize the Blogfather. In the
week before the election, Glenn Reynolds offered up his pre-mortem
explaining why and how Republicans were sure to lose, and mused that a
Republican loss was well deserved. He linked to multiple sites in which
conservatives and pseudo-conservatives announced they were planning to
vote Democrat. I read what they, and he, had to say and sent Glenn the following
I read this today at your website:
Reading the comments lambasting
Bill doesn't make me feel better about the GOP's current situation. I
think that the decision whether to vote for the GOP or not is one that
reasonable people, even reasonable pro-war people, can differ on, and
Bill is definitely on the right side where the war is concerned. And
I'll ask a question that I often ask of the lefties -- do you really
think this stuff will win people over?
I didn't read the comments to Bill Quick, but I read some at Brendan
Loy's site and added one myself, not profane, but not respectful
either. Permit me to point out that as an academic, you are more
susceptible than many of us to adopt a perspective that's too, er,
academic. I specifically object to your repeated use of the term
"reasonable." This is not a reasonable situation, and it is not
reasonable to prefer deliberate, premeditated sabotage of the war on
terror to garden variety poilitical bumbling. It is not reasonable to
hand the country's affairs over to the likes of Pelosi, Conyers,
Rangel, et al. And it is not reasonable to expect that people
unprotected by tenure and other academic perks will respond to the
schoolteacherish disciplining of "the whole class" by tossing off a
proper Brit "Cheerio, old top. Can't say I see it your way, but that's
the way the cricket ball bounces. Pip pip." The way they see it, their
taxes will go up, their President will be hounded into paralysis, and
the national security of their country will be seriously if not
irreparably damaged. Why? Because congress spends too much money,
Harriet Miers got nominated to the Supreme Court, and various
politicians got caught in the wrong cookie jars!!?? Which part of this
nonsensical logic do you wish us to take reasonably?
I also commented on your pre-mortem last week, not waspishly and
without kneejerk defense of Republicans, as you can see for yourself.
Something about the tone of your latest comment rubbed me the wrong
Regards, as always,
He didn't bother to answer, which is his prerogative, of course. But
since the election, he has more than once referenced his own pre-mortem
in a self-congratulatory way, as if the election were some kind of
academic exercise in which he had acquitted himself well. I suspect
that's all it really is to the paper tigers of the war on terror.
Actually winning it isn't as important as being the smartest one in the
room about it.
Today, he has already begun the process of being superior to the
political anarchy that has been unleashed by the Democratic win he sort
of kind of hoped for. His response? Two of his patented "Hehs" in a
. (Scroll to the
entry after Dean Demands Recount.) Is that what we have to look forward
to from InstaPundit for the next two nighmare years? An endless
succession of "Hehs"? Sorry, but this stuff was predictable months
, and it's just not that funny.
I continue to have great respect for Glenn Reynolds. However, I have
begun to doubt the accuracy of the title of his book, An Army of Davids
Davids are more focused on winning than being the most brilliant
doyenne at the party. What Davids do is go to war for the purpose
of winning when everyone else is trying too damn hard to be reasonable.
Like my father used to say when he disciplined me, "This hurts me more
than it does you." I mean it and I'm sure I will pay for it. But what's
the point of being a little guy if you can't load up your sling and
take a shot?
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
A Dissenting Voice
. I was fully prepared to be cheerful and philosophical
about the outcome of the election, especially since this site came
closer to predicting the actual
than most of the right-wing blogosphere. But the sheer
volume of cheerful, philosophical postings by conservative bloggers
this morning gives me pause. Yeah, the Republicans might profit from
the message sent by the electorate. And, yeah, a bunch of pretty dumb,
listless, and corrupt Republicans got deservedly booted out of office.
Those are insufficient grounds for cheer. There's a lot more going on
here than an object lesson for one political party. Of course it's
possible to turn a blind eye to everything but that and go looking for
bright spots, but bright spots are by definition merely spots. Here's
some of the vast dark background the determinedly good losers are
1. A lot of the Democrats elected may be "Blue Dog" conservative
types, but this remains to be seen, and there's absolutely no doubt
that the new House and Senate leadership is about as far left as you
can get. That's not a good omen despite all the superficial talk about
cooperation and reduced partisanship.
2. The Democrats, individually and as a party, still have
absolutely no ideas to bring forward about anything. Their economic
models are relics of Europe's suicidal romance with socialism, and
their foreign policy models remain stuck in the self-hating time warp
of Vietnam. Truthfully, they have no alternative to offer but
Politically, they are the Miss Havisham of America. This is an
3. The Republicans remaining in Congress are still just as stupid
as they were last week and last year, and their so-called leadership is
even more pitiful than the Dems -- McCain and his self-absorbed
disregard for freedom of political speech, Specter and his massively unsubtle
resolve to sabotage the confirmation of conservative judges, Lugar and
his positively iconic exemplification of all that is dull,
inarticulate, and indecisive in the Republican political class... Well,
you get the point.
4. We are still at war with an implacable, stateless, utterly
irrational enemy prepared to wage their crusade
over decades, while the
supposedly enlightened among us who should be defeating them cannot
think in timeframes beyond six months.
5. We are the complacent electorate who walked into voting booths
across the nation yesterday and deliberately cut off our own noses to
spite our face, voting in favor of higher taxes on ourselves, far more
vicious political infighting in the Congress than we've been subjected
to till now, and the absolute certainty of chaos and paralysis in the
pursuit of foreign policy objectives that are vital to the national
A great day for American democracy? I don't think so. But go ahead and
be cheerful, philosophical, humble, chastened, optimistic, gracious
in your losing, and even (some of you) just a little smug. Fine. Just don't start whining in a few weeks or months when
it turns out that Pelosi is Pelosi, Reid is Reid, Rangel is Rangel,
Conyers is Conyers, Durbin is Durbin, Kennedy is Kennedy, and Robert
Byrd is still venting his cobweb-filled head on the floor of the
Congress. You won't find any sympathy here.
One more thing. The impeachment clock is ticking. Don't you dare doubt
it, whatever they're saying today. Like the fable tells us, scorpions
cannot change their fundamental nature. The American frog elected to
give them a ride across the river. You all know what happens next.
There. Somebody had to say it.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Dems win, Earth explodes
By a shockingly huge margin, the Democrats took control of both houses
of the United States Congress tomorrow, November 7, paving the way for
Nancy Pelosi (D), California, to become Speaker of the House and Harry
Reid (D), Nevada, to become Majority Leader of the Senate.
In a related development, the planet earth spontaneously exploded a few
hours later, extinguishing hundreds of endangered species and fouling
the environment in ways too numerous to mention. In addition, the
planet's six and a half billion human inhabitants were instantaneously
vaporized by the blast, which Speaker-Elect Pelosi described as "yet
another example of the gross negligence and incompetence of the Bush
Final vote tallies were not available due to the destruction wreaked by
the end of life as we know it, but it is believed that the Democrats
gained more than 40 seats in the House and more than 10 in the Senate.
Majority Leader-Elect Reid called it "a ringing affirmation of the
policies and positions of the Democratic Party" and said it proved that
"the American people have rejected the unilateralism and elitist tax
policies of the Republicans."
Reid went on to express his "grave disappointment" about the
annihilation of the earth, "because now we will be denied our rightful
opportunity to demonstrate to the people of America and the world that
the United States can protect itself without being a military bully, a
sadistic jailer, or a tactless eavesdropper on private conversations
between political activists at home and abroad.
"The world would have been a much better place," he said, "if only Bush
and his cronies hadn't blown it up. We Democrats just plain care more about people, and now we'll never get the chance to prove it. It's a pisser."
Reid and Pelosi both promised extensive hearings to assign blame to the
President for the "criminal failure of this administration to prevent
the death of everyone and everything."
Presidential press secretary Tony Snow called the Democrat charges
"purely political" and said the evidence suggested the explosion was caused by the "unthinkable Democratic victory," not Republican malfeasance. He added that FEMA was responding to the disaster "as
well as can be expected under the circumstances."
He also said that the heavy Republican losses in the election were
caused largely by an unexpectedly low turnout and professed the belief
that people hadn't lost faith in the administration but had fallen prey
to "the natural desire for change we've seen time and again in the
sixth year of a presidency."
Various pollsters who failed to predict the enormity of the Democratic
landslide could not be reached for comment.
Friday, November 03, 2006
Lawn Jockey Slams
Steele, and the Republicans
Back to Archive Index XOFF NEWS
. In a
desperate attempt to find something, anything, outrageous to put in
print on the last Friday before the election, XOFF News reporters have
tracked down the most senior Lawn Jockey in Maryland to get his
response to this quote from Michelle Malkin's
Steele has tapped into bubbling
discontent among independent-thinking minority voters--a phenomenon
ignored by MSM elites intent on smearing him as an Uncle Tom, sellout,
or "lawn jockey" and pandering to the tired, old liberal establishment.
Lemuel Jones, as he likes to be called, has spent a lifetime guarding
the front entrance of one of the oldest surviving mansions in
Annapolis, Maryland. But that doesn't mean he's a traitor to his race.
"I've voted straight Democratic in every election they take me to," he
said in a personal interview Friday. "Just who is that Malkin woman to
be telling stories about me? She's one of those Asians, isn't she?
Probably Korean. Or Jewish. I've got no use for her kind."
On the touchy subject of whether he's going to vote for Maryland's
black senate candidate, Michael Steele, Mr. Jones is firm: "He's a
Republican. I don't vote for Republicans, white, black, brown, or
purple. Never did. Never will. Period. So if my ride shows up, I'm
going for the other fella."
Why, he's asked, do people continually think that black people of his
profession are closet conservatives, capitalists, and other despicable
"I don't know," he says. "I never even had an Uncle Tom. Maybe it's the
uniiform. I'd like to put my cap on backward and wear my pants
underneath my buttocks like all the other homeys white women like so
much, but I wasn't allowed to go to college in my day, so this is the
kind of job I have to take. But I'll tell you one thing," he adds, "I'm
no sellout. I don't ever
smile at all the rich white crackers who drive through this entrance.
And that goes double for Michael Steele and all the other white, racist
Republicans -- like that no-account Malkin broad. And that Bush. Did I tell you how much I hate the President? Well, I do. Any more questions?"
No. That's about it. Now, if you'll excuse us, we have to track down a
lead about Laura Bush's torrid sexual affair with Lynn Cheney and
George Bush's secret deal to let Halliburton strip-mine all the blue
states for coal slag. One of these stories just has to break in time to
make sure the Dems win the Senate on Tuesday. Trust us. Would we lie?