Open Thread

All kids all the time on this, the last day of Spring Break.  My eyes are spinning around in my head.  I’m sneaking off now to get a much needed haircut, but am hoping to be back at my computer in a few hours, not just with time to write, but with something to say.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. Mike Devx says

    I’d removed “Little Green Footballs” from my daily blog read back in September 2008, more or less about the same time I removed http://www.politico.com.

    The first, because it just wasn’t addressing my concerns any longer and had a new focus I surely didn’t like; the second because they’d obviously gone deep into the tank supporting Obama.

    Here’s an article by the IMAO guy expressing why he’s given up on Charles Johnson of “Little Green Footballs”, that expresses why I gave him up more clearly than I could.

    The key problem as I saw it with Charles Johnson, as with Rick Moran, is that he embarked on a war against social conservatives, seeking to diminish them and remove them from conservative influence.

    Now that Charles Johnson has decided to attack the tea party protests, I’ve not only stopped reading him, I’ve had it with him. I’m deeply angry at him. And attacking Glenn Beck… why? He’s been assaulting Pamela of Atlas Shrugged for months in a near-blood-feud that he won’t give up… why?

    He also assaults Ron Paul with frequency… why? I think as time passes we’ll come to agree with many of Ron Paul’s positions economically; and while I won’t agree with him about “American Imperialism”, I will grant that he at least has a position on it he can defend because it *is* consistent. I don’t agree with it but it’s not worthy of relentless assault! I would never vote Ron Paul for president because he lacks a large number of leadership qualities that I’d like to see in the president, but he’d be fine for almost any cabinet position, to me.

    In any case, I can’t figure out where Charles Johnson has been heading for months. He’s Sherman on a rampage through the South toward Atlanta, in the way he’s handling a large number of conservatives that don’t toe his line, and I don’t like it one bit. I’ve had it with Charles Johnson and Little Green Footballs. The attacks on Glenn Beck and the tea party movement are the final straw.

  2. suek says

    I started reading LGF, but gave it up rather quickly because his articles were so short, and the comments were so prolific…It wasn’t possible to really get involved in the discussion because there were so many comments. In the link you supplied, though, I found it interesting to note that Charles was originally a liberal, and “converted” apparently because of the Iraq war. (I’m not sure about that part) then I read this by one commenter:

    “It’s one thing to disagree, it’s another entirely to label those of your allies who disagree with you as The Enemy.”

    To me, that’s heart and soul the mindset of a liberal. No willingness to discuss various aspects of an issue – just an attitude of “I’ve considered the matter, made a decision, and the matter is closed. If you don’t agree, you’re the enemy and I _will_ destroy you.”

    I feel it’s my duty to consider facts and make a decision – but I recognize that others may come to a different conclusion because they start with different assumptions. I’d like for those who think like me to be in control because I think that would be best for everybody – but I have no desire to “destroy” others. I may not listen to them, but I don’t want to shut them up. It seems to me that liberals _do_. You may not disagree with them.

    And that’s why I fear their control.

  3. suek says

    Forgot to finish. Therefore, I think Charles is still a liberal. He just had a difference of opinion about the Iraq war. Internally, he was and still is a liberal, and is returning to his roots.

    I say this in some ignorance…since I don’t read his blog! Still have an opinion, though!

  4. says

    Re Charles, I agree that I’ve been increasingly uncomfortable with the war he’s waging against social conservatives. He still passes my most basic litmus test, though, which is that he is a staunch friend of Israel. (That, incidentally, is why I can’t take Pat Buchanan. His hostility to Israel is inexplicable to me.)

    Yesterday, I told my husband never trust a culture or ideology that hates dogs, women and Jews. Turning against any one of those is a signal that a culture or belief is fundamentally corrupt. The Left still loves dogs, but it hates Israel and it keeps its mouth shut when its Islamic friends brutalize women. The Left, therefore, is slipping ever faster away from the pale of humanity.

    While Charles may become too hostile for me to take, I’ll stop visiting. However, right now, I still find him a useful source of basic information, and continue to appreciate his intelligent hostility to radical Islam.

  5. suek says

    >>His hostility to Israel is inexplicable to me.>>

    Ditto. I’d never been particularly aware of that hostility until a few years ago, and it’s really sad – he’s a brilliant man but his hostility warps his view.

    Fact of the matter is – I don’t understand anybody’s hostility towards Israel or Jews in general.

  6. suek says

    “Alec Rawls
    32Reply to this comment

    The key element of this report — the ROE — has been corroborated by mainstream reports: Obama DID order that no action be taken unless the hostage’s life was in imminent peril. Even if there was a chance to take out the pirates without risk to the hostage, this was not to be done.

    When the captain jumped in the water and the pirates were allowed to retrieve him, I thought: “WTF? No one was ready at the machine gun to waste the pirates when this guy got clear?” Then the ROE came out and provided an alternative explanation.

    The clear implication is that Obama WANTED to negotiate with the pirates. He is eager to change the “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” norm. This guy actually WANTS to negotiate with terrorists. He wants to give them a seat at the table and make concessions to them.”

    Comment from http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/04/17/president-obama-restricted-navy-seals-from-rescuing-ship-captain-with-force/#comments

    That last paragraph stopped me cold. Could it be? Voting “present”, I expected. But he thinks he’s so good at negotiations that he can charm a snake?

  7. Mike Devx says

    I ran across this article about how Hollywood comedies are going dark.

    http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/movies/1533213,SHO-Sunday-report19.article

    I have a comment relating to it, based especially on how the article ended. I ask your pardon in advance for a long quote, of which the last sentence is the most important one to me:

    If anyone, Powers is the face of the new dark comedy.

    “We don’t play the comedy for laughs,” said Hill, who also co-wrote and co-directed “Eastbound & Down.” “A lot of the stuff that people maybe are going to be shocked about or think ‘That’s dark, they went too far’ — I think that’s just funny.”

    Hill believes “Observe and Report” is best viewed as a serious film with comedy in it. He dislikes broad comedies and instead cites ’70s anti-hero, character-driven films like Scorsese’s “The King of Comedy” and Sam Peckinpah movies.

    “The Sopranos,” Hill said, was “funnier than a comedy.”

    “Hopefully what ‘Eastbound & Down’ and now this movie does, it will [be like how] Elvis Presley is not shocking anymore,” Hill said. “Somebody else or we’ll try something new that will take things up a level again.”

    This is a perfect confession by a leftist of what many of them are up to, when it comes to providing their version of entertainment to us: shock value.

    All they really want, is to grab us by the hair, force our faces down into the crap, and rub our faces in it over and over. In time, your disgust will lessen. Then they “take things up a level” – make it even more vile and degrading – and rub your faces in the “new level” of disgusting crap. And again. And again. Always heightening the shock value.

    This corresponds to what happens in such annual leftist protest events such as “Up Your Alley” by San Francisco’s leftist gay community. One year, it’s two guys engaging in a “urination event” where one urinates, on a public street corner, on the other. The next year, it is a group of four of them. The next year, it’s sixteen of them. And on. And on. And on. Raising the shock value. Soon defecation will enter that particular protest venue. Always raise the shock value.

    And that is just one example where the shock value of various demonstrations at that event is steadily escalated year by year.

  8. Mike Devx says

    Just ran across another interesting article.

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/KD18Aa01.html

    If you’ve ever read “Spengler” online at AsiaTimes, you might have found him as consistently thought-provoking as I have. In the above article, he describes his fascinating journey to becoming Spengler, and emerges from behind the pseudonym.

    His name is David P. Goldman. He is Jewish, and has been moving through this recent decade, from a secular outlook on life, to the adoption of – a return to the roots of – Jewish Biblical spirituality, much of which he does address in the article, in addition to general comments on the importance of faith, and how its loss has hamstrung the West.

    I loved this article. I wonder what comes next for him, now that his true identity is known.

Leave a Reply