— National Review (@NRO) June 4, 2014
From the NRO, the most intellectually dishonest rest stop on the Information Super Highway.
Jason Richwine, who parted ways with the Heritage Foundation over his research arguing Hispanics are intellectually inferior to whites, has quietly begun writing semi-regularly for the flagship conservative publication National Review.
You don’t exactly need the Enigma Machine to decode the editorial policy at the National Review.
The National Review Online’s (The most intellectually dishonest rest stop on the information highway) Jim Geraghty says that the Newtown families are political pawns just like the 9-11 widows.
You know, Jim, this is exactly what a democracy is about: these citizens are trying to make a difference, to change things that they experienced first hand. They are trying to make the world a better place and to ensure that what they suffered through, no one else should suffer through. And yes, they have an agenda, as do you, Jim. The difference is that their agenda is towards saving people and yours is towards saving gun manufacturers bottom line.
Wingnuttia is letting the spiders crawl out of the brainpans of their Orcs and up to the mics of all their media outlets. Anyway, nice way to insult two groups of people who have been publicly shattered by events beyond their control.
K-Lo’s razor-sharp mind sees that what the Windsor case against DOMA is actually a case against the Inheritance Tax, and ipso-facto, nothing up her sleeve, quotes at length a screed against taxing the rich. And then she concludes thusly:
“The Court ought not settle these matters by declaring its ideological will on the country in a most radical way. There are solutions short of a judicially imposed revolution that could meet concerns before the Court.”
The Kenyan Usurper should appoint her to the SCOTUS at the next available opportunity.
(Fair Warning! The link above takes you to the Blog at Poo Corner, the hive mind of the NRO, the most intellectually dishonest rest stop on the information super highway.)
This must be the most stupid analysis yet from the most intellectually dishonest rest stop on the information super-highway (The NRO):
Welcome to the scorched-earth phase of the Democrats’ “war on women” campaign, and the beginning of a ruthless offensive to hold their Senate majority, and possibly to retake the House, in 2014.
Democrats have nearly perfected the following exercise in cynical electioneering:
- introduce legislation;
- title it something that appeals to the vast majority of Americans who have no interest in learning what is actually in the bill, e.g., the “Violence Against Women Act”;
- make sure it is sufficiently noxious to the GOP that few Republicans will support it;
- vote, and await headlines such as “[GOP Lawmaker] Votes No On Violence Against Women Act”;
- clip and use headline in 30-second campaign ad; and
Those Bastids! How dare they fiendishly start this plot rolling in 1994 and have it sail through the house renewed by vast bipartisan majorities every congress ever since?!
Professional virgin, Our Lady of the Immaculate Cheesecake, K-Lo, a woman who claims that she did not choose virginity—it chose her, is offended! Offended, I tells ya:
I don’t want to linger on this, but last night’s Super Bowl half-time show was ridiculous — and gratuitously so. Watching Twitter, it was really no surprise that men made comments about stripper poles and putting dollar bills through their TV sets, was it?
Why can’t we have a national entertainment moment that does not include a mother gyrating in a black teddy?
I think that says more about the people in J-Lo’s timeline than it does about Beyoncé, and I trust that K-Lo has edited her timeline to include only decent people, her toadies, and minions. You know, Doughy Pantload, Cardinal Frothy Santorum, Willard Romney. You know, people who’d want to put a buck in a g-string. (Cheap bastids. Don’t they know that a Lincoln is the approved minimum?)
(Put a Dress On, by Katheryn Jean Lopez, editress at the NRO, the most intellectually dishonest rest stop on the Information Super Highway)
The idea that all violence is “senseless” violence is one that has taken deep root on the left; it’s also, unfortunately, one that poses a major impediment to understanding the world.
Nazism may have been an ideology to which the United States was — and to which [President Obama] is — implacably opposed, but it is hardly “senseless.” By the early 1930s, the Nazi party had hundreds of thousands of devoted members and repeatedly attracted a third of the votes in German elections; its political leaders campaigned on a platform comprising 25 non-senseless points, including the “unification of all Germans,” a demand for “land and territory for the sustenance of our people,” and an assertion that “no Jew can be a member of the race.” Suffice it to say, many sensible Germans were persuaded.
Seriously? I thought that they fired John Derbyshire.
(NRO, the most intellectually dishonest rest stop on the information super highway)
NY Magazine sent Joe Hagan on the NRO Cruise following the 2012 Goat Rodeo, which it seems was a pity party of epic proportions.
The six-page article is full of great stuff, generally old, white, Republicans being old white Republican and completely oblivious that the world has changed and left them by the wayside, but this quote sums the whole thing up:
“Pardon me, madam, but I have been in your country of Australia for ten days and the only Aborigines I’ve seen have been drunk on the street, and at least if we were in my country they would be serving the drinks at this conference!”
UPDATE: here is the best dialog with a bit of an introduction:
At other times, things got a little too old-fashioned for comfort. I met a man near the railing who was there as a caregiver for a 70-year-old National Review cruiser from Palm Desert, California. He was gay and seemingly liberal and had come on the cruise only to push his boss around in a wheelchair. As he smoked a cigarette, he recounted a conversation the two had about the ship’s largely Indonesian and Filipino staff.
BOSS: You notice none of the workers are white.
CAREGIVER: Except the managers upstairs.
BOSS: Well, that’s the way it should be.
Yesterday, as you may recall, many people responded to the lunacy of Charlotte Allen’s NRO clarion call that feminism is to blame for the slaughter of little kids at Sandy Hook. Her theme was if a man had been there, things would have turned out differently. (Perhaps the man would be dead too?)
Anyway, today she is back on the pages of the NRO to defend herself, and of course her defense is that she is a victim. Yes, people attacking her stupid essay is the same as if she where Adam Lanza or something. It’s the Wingnuttian reflex, so I cannot blame her for her culture, obviously. But let’s listen in, shall we?
“I’ve been reviled by the Holy Trinity of online liberal journalism: David Weigel (Slate), Alex Pareene (Salon), and Jessica Valenti (The Nation). Also: Daily Kos, Media Matters, and Mediaite, just to name a few spleen outlets (you can Google my name plus “Sandy Hook” to see the links to dozens of others). At Esquire’s Politics blog, Charles Pierce gave me the McArdle Award, named after the Daily Beast’s Megan McArdle for suggesting that gang-rushing the shooter would work better than gun bans to avert mass murders or minimize their deadly damage.”
You know, that’s a pretty good roster of high-rollers, Charlotte. You should feel proud that they read your piece. What else have you got?
“(Since I wholeheartedly agree with McArdle — and I suggested that very tactic in my NRO symposium piece–I’m honored to accept the award.) One of Pierce’s commenters wrote that someone ought to “beat the stupid” out of me. Remarks like that are the way that liberal guys demonstrate that they, too, possess testicles.”
Agreeing with McArdle is actually a symptom. You should seek help. The single reference to physical violence at Charlie’s place seems so minor to me. You know that if
Ilse, She Wolf of the Nazis Michelle Malkin were playing the role of Pierce, by now her Orcs would have sent death threats and showed up in the dorm rooms of college campuses (which actually happened when Malkkkin decided to publish contact information for a group of UCSC students who opposed the Iraq War). But, you know, Charlotte is now living in fear because a northeast liberal… wrote something.
But now, for the pièce de resistance:
“Finally, even Jonah Goldberg right here at NRO accused me of “blaming the victim.” Et tu, Jonah!”
I mean really, if your thesis is so stupid that Doughy Pantload mocked you, you should give up your wingnuttian welfare, Charlotte.
“No, I was not blaming any of the 26 victims or the parents who enrolled their kids at Sandy Hook. I am, however, blaming our culture that denies, dismisses, and denigrates the masculine traits—including size, strength, male aggression and a male facility for strategic thinking–that until recently have been viewed as essential for building a society and protecting its weaker members.”
Well, actually you did. You wondered why the non-existant husky 12-year old boys didn’t tackle the killer or the janitor didn’t throw a bucket at the guy with assault rifles and body armor. Aside from the fact that you made up the part about 12-year olds being at the school which only goes through Fourth grade.
“We now have Hanna Rosin at Slate urging parents to buy their little boys Easy Bake ovens so they’ll be more like little girls. Women are less aggressive by instinct, and they are typically trained to be nice. I praised and continue to praise the courage of the Sandy Hook principal, Dawn Hochsburg, and the teachers who gave up their lives along with her, but with some men on the scene who knew what to do, some of those lives might have been saved.”
Please tell male chefs everywhere that they are feminine. I’d love to see how that plays out with A. Bourdain. But more importantly, even after you praise Dawn Hochsburg and her staff who died trying to protect their charges, you continue to say that a man would have been successful where they were not. Having testosterone does not improve thinking. Trust me, I know about that.
“I am also responding to David Weigel, who told me I gotten my facts wrong: that there are actually two men, a custodian and a fourth-grade teacher, on Sandy Hook’s 52-person staff. He’s right, and I stand corrected. This does help prove my point, though: just two adult men in a building containing 500 people — and it’s not clear that both of them were at work that day.”
Wait a minute: Weigel pointing out that you were factually wrong proves that you were right? Also/too: sentence fragment.
“Indeed, a visit to Sandy Hook’s staff website is a depressing experience, the sea of women’s names. Why aren’t there more men? Perhaps not enough want the job? But why? Because they are tacitly discouraged from careers in elementary education? It’s certainly not the money, because union rules typically require kindergarten teachers and high-school chemistry teachers to be paid on exactly the same salary scale.”
Note the subtle dig at unions. But given that you are a great believer in cliché gender roles, and are arguing for strong men to help weak women, shouldn’t you be telling us that real men shouldn’t be in nurturing roles like education? I’m so confused by what you are trying to say, Charlotte!
“Another depressing page on the Sandy Hook website is the “Safe Schools Climate” page. It’s a page of links to “anti-bullying” resources. Yes, the Sandy Hook staff’s idea of a “safe school” was a school where kids didn’t say mean things about each other on Facebook! The Sandy Hook massacre was a tragedy, but it was at least in part a tragedy of the collision between feminist delusions and reality.”
OK, back to stereotypical gender roles: bullying good, respect and cooperation bad.
So there you have it: Ladies should act like ladies: all weak and terrified, and men should act like men, except when they should be nurturing school teachers. Again, I cannot believe that the the NRO (the most intellectually dishonest rest-stop on the Information Super Highway) publishes this sort of twaddle.
Charlotte Allen, the low-rent Phyllis Schlafly at the NRO (the most intellectually dishonest rest-stop on the Information Super Highway), says that the lack of men at the Sandy Hook Elementary School was really the problem. Damn feminists, it’s their fault:
“There was not a single adult male on the school premises when the shooting occurred. In this school of 450 students, a sizeable [sic] number of whom were undoubtedly 11- and 12-year-old boys (it was a K–6 school) [K–4 -- TG], all the personnel — the teachers, the principal, the assistant principal, the school psychologist, the “reading specialist” — were female. There didn’t even seem to be a male janitor [not true --TG] to heave his bucket at Adam Lanza’s knees.”
Aside from throwing a bucket at the knees of a gunman armed with high-powered guns with enormous bullet clips, what else have ya got for us, Charlotte?
“Women and small children are sitting ducks for mass-murderers. The principal, Dawn Hochsprung, seemed to have performed bravely. According to reports, she activated the school’s public-address system and also lunged at Lanza, before he shot her to death. Some of the teachers managed to save all or some of their charges by rushing them into closets or bathrooms. But in general, a feminized setting is a setting in which helpless passivity is the norm.”
Dawn Hochsprung seemed to have performed bravely? Most men I know would not have had the presence of mind, let alone the (lady) balls of Hochsprung. Rushing the kids into locations like closets and bathrooms seems to have helped all but 20 of the kids, which in itself is as close to a miracle as we seem to get most days.
“Male aggression can be a good thing, as in protecting the weak — but it has been forced out of the culture of elementary schools and the education schools that train their personnel. Think of what Sandy Hook might have been like if a couple of male teachers who had played high-school football, or even some of the huskier 12-year-old boys, had converged on Lanza.”
Protecting the weak. Jeebus, are you really saying that ladies should be ladies and let a man do the protecting? Also/too: aside from there not being any husky 12-year old boys (K–4, remember), don’t boys count as children to be protected, too? Isn’t this some sort of Megan McCardle twattle?
But then, our pal Charlotte moves onto her next topic in her thesis: the coddling of men. I guess it is not enough to want menfolk to protect the wimmins, but you need to keep those boys rugged or something. Anyway, take it away Charlotte:
“Parents of sick children need to be realistic about them. I know at least two sets of fine and devoted parents who have had the misfortune to raise sons who were troubled for genetic reasons beyond anyone’s control. Either of those boys could have been an Adam Lanza.“
But they aren’t, Charlotte, but they aren’t. I’m not sure what Charlotte means that they were troubled for genetic reasons; is that a dog whistle for something else? I can interpret that as schizophrenia, being gay, being mixed race? What does it mean, Charlotte, what does it mean?
“You simply can’t give a non-working, non-school-enrolled 20-year-old man free range of your home, much less your cache of weapons. You have to set boundaries. You have to say, “You can’t live here anymore — you’re an adult, and it’s time for you to be a man. We’ll give you all the support you need, but we won’t be enablers.”
Oh, so what she’s saying is, tough love, and now you are society’s problem? “You genetically troubled kid, out of the house with you! I’m done! And keep away from my Uzi, too.”
Unfortunately, the idea of being an “adult” and a “man” once one has reached physical maturity seems to have faded out of our coddling culture.
OK, so in short, from Charlotte’s confused mind: Women are weak (except for unarmed Dawn Hochsprung, who sprang like a coiled tiger on the armed gunman), men are coddled, but women need them anyway to take down killers. Everyone know your gender-role behavior now? Good.
It doesn’t surprise me that some wingnut wrote this, what does surprise me is that anyone would publish it, but then again, it is on the NRO (the most intellectually dishonest rest-stop on the Information Super Highway).