Standing Athwart History Spouting Profanity
There was a time when National Review had standards and vauled decorum. No more. In his zeal to take down Ron Paul, David Frum has approvingly cited and linked to a piece describing Ron Paul as "this little anti-semitic c*nt," interspersed with repeated uses of "f*ck" and "f*cking," "as*," "cr*p," and "sh*t."
Frum also quotes the author's description of Paul as a "hick," which is, of course, a slur against Americans who live in rural areas. Such slurs obviously do not bother Frum, who has spent his American sojourn in Manhattan, New Haven, and D.C. But it shows a bit of ingratitude, since Americans from rural areas are providing a disproportionate amount of the manpower for our armed forces fighting the war Frum agitated for in Iraq. If Ron Paul is to be held accountable for the contents of ghostwritten newsletters he has repudiated, Frum should be held accountable for endorsing such a vulgar and vile screed.
Frum's actions should come as no surprise, though. He has repeatedly shown a willingness to lie about and defame anyone who disagrees with his agenda. His endorsement of a profanity-laced diatribe is small stuff compared to that. But it is indicative of the man and his character.
Entries(RSS)
Dr. Wilson at 48,
I do not know if you watched or perhaps heard about Russert's "attack" on Ron Paul on the 23 December 2007. Russert was trying to make Dr. Paul to be a hypocrite on the Constitution because Dr. Paul has spoken of amending the Constitution, with Russert's implication being that someone who wants to amend the Constitution is not a strict constructionist and does not honor "the founders." (Actually, I prefer to consider the opinion of the ratifying conventions which gave the Constitution its authority.) One smiles which one notes that the only two amendments that Dr. Paul has proposed, to my knowledge, were to get rid of "birthright citizenship" spun into existence out of the 14th which itself is withershins the intentions of the drafters and the ratifiers and the 16th which is definitely contrary to the intention of most of our 18 century political ancestors.
Jonah Goldberg wrote about a cross country drive from Seattle to NYC, and in this account he was explicit in his account of his fear of the white men of Montana. How is it that anything these people say is taken at face value is beyond me, but that anyone buys it is unspeakable.
Details of the when and by whom the anti-Paul smears were propagated on New Hampshire primary day:
The Orange Line: anatomy of a smear
Re: National Review and the "...vulgar and vile..." I did not appreciate the title of Mr. William F. Buckley's latest book titled:
Cancel Your Own G--damm Subscription.
Actually I found it very offensive and totally unnecessary, moreover, aggravating the offense was the fact that Mr. Buckley was not even quoting someone else, but was quoting himself
in the title.
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain has to mean something, does it not? If it does not forbid that word, what word would it forbid?
I have always distinguished between vulgarisms and profanity.
Neither are good, but profanity is, in my view, much worse.
I have tried to project myself into Buckley's mind in an effort to come up with some reasonable justification for his selection of that title. No luck. Does anyone know one?
@55: This is a man who publicly stated, when the late Pope John Paul II was on his deathbed, that he did not honor his parish priest's request for prayers for the dying pontiff and that he hoped His Holiness would not recover. Whether this is a senile old fellow just losing any shred of decency, tact and reverence he ever had, or an unraveling of a piety so carefully faked throughout the decades, is a question I do not have the right to answer, or probably even to contemplate.
Suffice to say, it is clear Buckley's diabolical side has had the most influence on his intellectual descendants, and I pity Mr. Piatak for having to keep himself informed of these ongoings reading their malarkey.
Mr. Buckley's diabolical side probably originated in his brief career as a CIA agent. Personally, I've never understood why Buckley was such a popular figure with conservatives. He always came across to me as a pompous ass, with his affected, high-brow New England accent (he was originally from Texas, I believe).
And why he allowed these neocon twerps to take over his publication is anybody's guess. Speaking of which, is the smarmy clown who hosts the Daily Show their number one fan, or what? Every time I've come across John Stewart's show, he's had one of these neocons on his program - Bill Kristol, David Frum and last night it was Jonah Goldberg.
Concerning Buckley, I remember seeing him on his show back in the early eighties and thinking even then what a big fake and put on he was, right down to his annoying posh accent, an obviously concious attempt at appearing very very upscale. I remember my Dad getting mad, emitting a few cuss words of his own, and changing the channel because he simply could not stand Buckley's pretensiousness. Way back then, as a fourteen year old, I never liked Buckley because I could sense something dark and deceitful about him, just in his demeanour. Nothing about how he has turned out, nor anything about the detestable character of his proteges, surprises me in the least, nor would it have surprised me back then.
Nicholas at 56 [and others]
Thanks for the info.
Re: Mr. Buckley. He has been acting a little strange of late. Perhaps the gentlemen has a touch of Alzheimer's, which IS a
progressive affliction, and might cause one to do things one would not do otherwise~short of going bonkers.
It is, to say the least, unusual for a professing Christian to title
his book, quoting himself no less, Cancel Your Own__Subscription.
That book will be in the public square for many years to come, and
everyone who seriously considers it will be staring at the profanity in the title. Mr. Buckley has thousands, or at least hundreds, or at least dozens, of young coming-on conservatives who revere him. It was not a good example for an older Christian to set before the young men in the movement.
Nonetheless, I know we all have our own particular demons with which we must contend. Maybe Old Buckley's is just different than mine.
Four-letter words are not "obscene" or "dirty" in and of themselves. They become that way when used in a certain context. That was a point Lenny Bruce (R.I.P.) often made. And yes, I'll take Lenny on a bad evening over Tom Piatak on a good one. Piety has its limits. Laughter shouldn't.