Comments on: Reasons for despair

By: Alan K. Henderson

Alan K. Henderson — Mon, 09 Aug 2004 21:29:47 +0000

Scout policy is justified for the same reason that Camp Fire Girls banning male leaders is justified. It unnecessarily increases the risk of making the organization in question a magnet for sexual predators. To quote an old post, “There may be some heterosexual men who can be responsible leaders in the Camp Fire Girls and some homosexual men (who don’t buy into theological leftism) who can be responsible priests, but if such doors are opened the few good men will be outnumbered by the wolves who will use such an opportunity to expand their hunting grounds.” I don’t listen to Savage. His remark was not tactful. I don’t know what he’s been saying about the SFHRC. But does he have a legitimate complaint, that the SFHRC has one or more policies that, if heeded, would create more opportunities for sexual predators to snag victims? Someone should get in Savage’s face and ask him to qualify his remark. After all, you can’t fisk what hasn’t been said.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Mon, 09 Aug 2004 19:47:37 +0000

Owning a gun [not equal to] committing murder. Being a gay Scoutmaster [not equal to] raping children. Not that I think Alan was drawing that second equation, but really, who the fuck cares why Savage said that. There’s no context that can excuse it.

By: Alan K. Henderson

Alan K. Henderson — Mon, 09 Aug 2004 09:23:01 +0000

Did anybody bother asking Savage why he made the statement? Apparently he thinks that some San Francosco Human Rights Commission policy would wittingly or unwittingly enable pedophiles. If the SFHRC ever campaigned against the Boy Scouts policy to exclude gay scoutmasters, that would certainly explain things.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 21:18:30 +0000

Matt McG—That’s probably true; I don’t specialize in history of philosophy (especially not Leibniz), so dunno how much Pangloss is used as a stick to beat him with. I do believe that Leibniz gets more respect than Voltaire in philosophy departments these days, but I don’t know whether that is a good thing (Voltaire doesn’t have much metaphysics, I guess). Another thing is that, when I think about it, the specific view of Leibniz’s that Voltaire was satirizing turns out to be one that I think is the best possible solution to the problem of evil—but that’s a minority view (and not one I hold that deeply).

By: Jason Kuznicki

Jason Kuznicki — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 13:40:28 +0000

Less that half a century ago, African Americans — like the Jews of the Old Testament — were emerging from centuries of enslavement and subjugation with a culture that was stirring in its resilience, rich in its subtleties and epic in its scope. And I’m sure that the National Review was right there beside them, applauding their brave and principled leaders. Bah. Conservatism is never having to say you’re sorry.

By: yabonn

yabonn — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 11:35:21 +0000

Daniel Drezner and Jacob Levy from the Conspiracy both wrote that they lean toward voting Kerry. Quite revealing about the identity of this administration, don’t you think? As its majority is shrinking, it’s interesting to examine who the last hard core fan are (or who are their blogosphere representants), and then compare and contrast when they try to put their “moderate/compassionnate/uniter” faces on again.

By: MFB

MFB — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 09:56:59 +0000

But, kj, anyone to the right of Noam is indeed a right-winger. In fact, I’m not so sure about Noam.

By: KJ

KJ — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 08:44:33 +0000

Would you please, please define the term “right-winger” in a way that it actually has a meaning? As it looks now, anybody to the right of Noam Chomsky is a right-winger to you in one way or another, and that’s really a big tent – a lot bigger than the Republican Party.

By: Jay C

Jay C — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 03:39:49 +0000

…“Michael Savage, the nationally syndicated conservative radio talk show host” After that intro, need any more be said re the credibility/quality of any subsequent comment????

By: mg

mg — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 02:56:27 +0000

I cannot tell you how good Daniel Drezner and The Volokh Conspiracy look to me right now. We need rational right-wingers more than ever. But do they even count as right-wingers nowadays? Unless I’m mistaken, Daniel Drezner and Jacob Levy from the Conspiracy both wrote that they lean toward voting Kerry.

By: Matt McGrattan

Matt McGrattan — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 00:09:31 +0000

Matt, to be fair, whenever certain aspects of Leibniz’s philosophy gets brought up the word “Panglossian” is never far behind. Of course the existence of Michael Savage is direct and incontrovertible proof that this is not the best of all possible worlds.

By: bob mcmanus

bob mcmanus — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 00:01:35 +0000

4th rated National Talk Show, 330 stations, 7 million regular listeners….yet I have never heard a conervative blogger or commenter say anything more approving than “Michael Savage is intolerable.” Hmmm…something is being tolerated by Republicans, if it is not Savage, then it is his audience or his ideas

By: djw

djw — Thu, 05 Aug 2004 23:41:17 +0000

Reading one paragraph of that prose was pretty painful, the idea of reading a short novel of that crap simply boggles the mind. Shorter Goldblatt: I wrote a novel so bad I scared away several agents and editors. Look at me!!

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 05 Aug 2004 22:30:17 +0000

The difference between honorable conservatives and the current administration is encapsulated in this tidbit: John McCain strongly condemns the anti-Kerry ads, while the White House refuses to condemn them. Not that McCain is without some serious faults—but he’s vastly more honest and honorable than Bush and his administration.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Thu, 05 Aug 2004 22:19:18 +0000

This is also brilliant: Satire, apart from its aesthetic value, has a Darwinian function. In the novel Candide, Voltaire satirized the philosophy of Leibniz... That's right, Voltaire killed off Leibniz and that's why nobody reads Leibniz anymore.