jasencomstock:

ocatbusmycatbus:

jasencomstock:

theconjecturer:

jasencomstock:

joshuatopolsky:

Unsurprisingly amazing writing.

Back in the 1980s, conservatism was a thrilling empirical, reality-based challenge to overweening government power and omniscient liberal utopianism. Today, alas, it has become a victim of its own success, reliving past glories rather than tackling current problems. It is part secular dogma - no taxes, no debt, more war - and part religious dogma - no Muslims need apply; amend the federal constitution to keep gays in their place; no abortions even for rape and incest; more settlements on the West Bank to prepare for the End-Times. Although there were inklings back then - Stockman was right; Iran-Contra should have been a warning - they were still balanced by empiricism. Reagan raised taxes, withdrew from Lebanon, hated war, and tried to abolish all nuclear weapons on earth. The first Bush was an under-rated deficit-cutter and diplomat, a legacy doubly squandered by his son.

Now it’s Levin-land: either total freedom or complete slavery and a rhetorical war based entirely on that binary ideological spectrum. In other words, ideological performance art: brain-dead, unaware of history, uninterested in policy detail, bored by empiricism, motivated primarily by sophistry, Manicheanism, and factional hatred.

Andrew Sullivan beats off to SPSS

This is actually the same tedious mishmash of complaints against the Right that Sully has been making since 2002. And he ignores the actual ideological diversity of conservatism — the wing that opposes war on budgetary grounds, for example — so that, much like the conservatives he condemns for their binary outlook, Queen Sully can establish a firm, “good,” “old” conservatism to contrast with the “bad,” “new” conservatism.

It’s eloquent, yes, but an eloquent straw man. Sullivan has done better.

Andrew Sullivan and Chris Hedges want everyone to remember back to the good old days when we all were in college and our collective understanding of the world was X and motherfuck is it bad now. Conservatives ain’t being empirical. Police not following Constitutions… man!

HEY LET’S COMPARE PEOPLE WE DISAGREE WITH TO WOMEN, IT’LL TOTALLY _____________________

I didn’t think about that. ‘Queen’ and ‘Girl’ are pretty common for gays to call each other and aren’t meant to be derogatory-  I’d say they are interchangeable with ‘dude.’ I don’t know the implications of this.

I did think about that, though. Besides the whole “it’s different when we say it to each other” thing, which is actually kind of valid, when you are an angry queen about something, it’s not improper to call you an angry queen.

Anyway.