No, I mean this:
Number one on Amazon under the category, uh, yeah: books. Take a closer look at it here.
Why, you may ask, is Charles Krauthammer an actual Pulitzer Prize winner rather than merely a self-promoting nominee? Why is his book number one under "books" rather than number 60 under "category/sub-category/sub-sub-category/an even lower category/no, even lower/is the temperature rising?/how deep are we now, exactly/oh, God, please, let's go back up now while we still can/"?
The answer is almost certainly because liberal psychiatrist-turned-conservative columnist Krauthammer is a genuinely thoughtful man, but more importantly, an intellectually honest one, to the core. If you disagree with him, be prepared to bring your A argument game, because you can be sure that what you may want to contest is something he's already tested and re-tested himself a hundred times before, not merely the first impulse that may have come to his mind before being slapped on a page.
For any who may be reading this before 9:00 PM CDT/ 10:00 PM EDT tonight, October the 25th, Bret Baier will be hosting an hour-long interview with Krauthammer on your local Fox news station. Oh - did you know he's been in a wheelchair for 32 years? But you won't hear him whining about that.
If you miss that interview, console yourself with this instead.
Every now and then I see him on the street with colleagues or his son. He looks like he's in great pain. He's really an amazing man.
ReplyDeleteI'd be interested to see Krauthammer's response to Andrew McCarthy's weekend article, about that Daily Show interview. Having watched the video at that link, I think McCarthy's point cannot be contested, that Krauthammer accepts the central premises of progressivism's centralized, redistributionist, and ultimately enervating welfare state.
ReplyDeleteLet's never forget that, thoughtful as he is, Krauthammer defended Roberts' betrayal of the Constitution, re: Obamacare, by saying that he acted to defend the Supreme Court's reputation.
Clearly, he didn't appear on Stewart's show to argue for us, but to knife us in the back for the sake of his book and his respectability. Karl Rove isn't the only person who'd like to see accomodationist, managerial progressivism be rebranded as conservative -- as the farthest-right position permitted in polite society -- but we're doomed if that happens.
--
Yeah, he's a big fish, and he clears the very low bar of being a better writer than Rod Dreher, but let's not go overboard in pointing to Krauthammer as the quintessential serious writer.
Bubba, I'm not going to write Krauthammer off as some kind of enemy if he agrees with conservative principles generally. Not in the Age of Obama that we're in currently.
DeleteAn enemy, no, but not a principled conservative leader, either, and the instances where he sides with the statist establishment is at least as important as when he "generally" agrees with our principles -- especially if those instances are when push comes to shove.
DeleteBubba,
DeleteNot an unreasonable commentary necessarily. My only counter responses would be these:
- Remember, Krauthammer was a liberal who became a conservative.
- What do you imagine Krauthammer's interest was in doing Stewart's show, arguing your thoughts about conservatism, or trying to sell his book containing his lifetime of writings on conservatism to Stewart's audience?
- Who do you feel has materially done more to actually advance the practice of conservatism in our time, you or Charles Krauthammer?
Me, I'll still take him, impurities and all.
Keith
Let's also remember what Roberts did with respect to Obamacare: sawed off its legs at the hip by deep-sixing the Commerce Clause argument completely and, by virtue of precedent, as permanently as these things can be, then cosmetically replacing them with Styrofoam legs by purely politically declaring the individual mandate a tax - thus allowing it now to be removed as facilely as it was passed.
DeleteThe result: no one now can use the Commerce Clause to make you buy insurance or broccoli, and liberals themselves are now forced to accept that as well every time they cry "the Supreme Court declared Obamacare to be constitutional". But what they got back from Roberts' defense of the public's opinion of the court and thus its opinion of what the court did to Obamacare in that process was a very different creature than what they sent in. What they got back is a judicially poisoned, structurally dying one that now can far more easily be stomped to dust the way it must be, legislatively, not judicially.
Keith
Keith, why don't you just tell Bubba to shut the hell up? It would be way more reasonable than suggesting he shouldn't criticize Krauthammer because he has "done more for the conservative movement" [and what a glorious movement it is -- ed.] than Bubba. Of course, Krauthammer has gotten paid a shitload more than Bubba has, too, but I guess that's not worth mentioning...
DeleteIt's touching, your loyalty to the spineless toadies who have repeatedly let our country be sold down the river.
kathleen
Kathleen, when I caught Krauthammer on Hannity the other night he was making the argument that, having personally met Obama on several occasions and having found him unusually curious about the details of policy that he seemed to be unusually micro-engaged in for a president, he could only conclude that, contrary to Hannity's argument that Obama was simply oblivious to the details of Obamacare, Obama was almost certain to have known in detail that people wouldn't be able to keep their insurance under Obamacare and was therefore almost certainly deliberately and knowingly lying in order to sell it when he said otherwise rather than merely incompetent. Spinally paralyzed, maybe, but not quite a spineless toady, at least in my book.
DeleteI see you listed as an author in the sidebar, Kathleen. I know I for one would find it educational if you would write a post spelling out the differences between the true conservatives and the spineless toadies selling our country down the river and then explaining who belonged to each category and why.
Keith
Keith: "Obama was almost certain to have known in detail that people wouldn't be able to keep their insurance under Obamacare and was therefore almost certainly deliberately and knowingly lying in order to sell it…
DeleteAh, it is refreshing to talk about something actually important, other than "he-who-must-not-be-named."
My 2 ¢ are that Obamacare was knowingly set up to do precisely what it is doing, that is, fail — the purpose being to eventually push things (especially after the damage has been done as millions of people find out that they've lost their insurance) into a more socialistic "single payer" system, using the argument that "hey, it's the only way we can fix this mess [we created]."
That's certainly a popular theory right now, Oengus, but I myself see at least two problems with it.
DeleteFirst, deliberately creating a spectactularly disastrous demonstration program in real life that snarls up the lives and finances of millions of people just doesn't seem to me to be the most effective way to finally win over both the voters and their representatives who were already against single payer when it was only abstract theoretical idealism. That kind of fait accompli seems more likely to succeed as the only way out at the point where the entire insurance industry has already been destroyed, not just Obamacare, which of course could still happen eventually but which is far less likely with all the exposure the web site debacle has created.
Second, the failed-Obamacare-becomes-single pay theory graces the Democrats with the assumption that Obamacare was actually created to be fully functioning health care reform in the first place rather than merely a Potemkin charade of it cynically designed primarily to capture a limited amount of votes and offices for Democrats for as long as the charade would last. Thus the giveaway goodies like pre-existing conditions and free preventative care and 26-year-old "children" baked in on the front end while all the costs were relegated to the Devil and the hindmost in outer years. Future Democrats were no more their concern than future Republicans or future African-American presidents forced to follow the iconic example the first black President Obama set. And, after all, even though conservatives and Republicans are heavily playing up the disasters in the indie markets, they're really still a small part of the total health insurance market overall, and most people won't see any real change in their health insurance other than the annual price increases they're already begrudgingly accustomed to. The major consequences for people overall will be the relatively invisible increases in the deficit, which when they show their true effects will already be too late. In the meantime, the scam will work like a feel good feed-the-poor children charity for most of those people who are either backing Obamacare or indifferent to it: they're abstractly doing good for those poor people without insurance, and it doesn't impact them much. And after they've approved Obamacare or signed off on their autodraft for just pennies-per-day for little Maria, they really don't care much what happens next, whether poor guy ever really gets medical care or whether their pennies end up in Maria's mouth or Generalissimo's Swiss account.
The Healthcare.gov blowup was actually probably a big surprise to everyone concerned, because there was no one actually in charge at the nexus of political power being wielded and the limits of the skill sets ultimately utilized to build the thing in the real world. Shorter: pure providence blessed the Republicans, because just the slightest bit more of actual political focus on successfully building the web site and the Potemkin illusion would have been complete enough to fit the effective life span of the law as written. After that, F'em all, it would be some other Democrat's problem to rescue, if they even could.
Keith
Just a comment will have to do Keith. to wit: any "conservative" who claims not to have recognized Obama as a rabid lefty before the 2008 election is either *full of shit* or is lying. Probably the latter, since they are toadies and want to be invited to shit in DC. they want to kiss the asses of the apparatchiks that surround them in chevy chase and environs. got it? Krauthammer is just another toady. A lacky. He wishes to separate himself from flyovers like myself, who figured out the guy was a marxist by 2006, or like Joe the Plumber, who is named Joe and was a plumber and still outwitted Krauthammer, the Great Wizard of Smart. Krauthammer is either lying or dumb: either way I have no use for him.
Deletekathleen
By the way, Keith, I lived in DC for thirteen years. It's full of people like Krauthammer, who literally would rather die than live where the vast majority of tea partiers live. I know of what I speak. he's a phony and makes a great living at being one. Wake up.
DeleteKathleen
Kathleen, it's a matter of fact that Krauthammer was a liberal psychiatrist who gave up his practice to take a shot at being a conservative columnist. Looks to me like he succeeded. I couldn't say if his income now is higher or lower than as a psychiatrist. If I had to bet, I'd bet lower. I also don't think he sees you as his audience but instead those moderates or liberals like his former self who might be rationally persuaded by plodding argument why there are rational better alternatives to what they're blindly clinging to now. Giving Stewart a big sloppy kiss about the "crowning achievements of liberalism" on a book plugging tour is just standard showbiz.
DeletePost or comment, I'm still waiting for you to name the premier popular conservative writers out I should be measuring Krauthammer against to find him wanting, and why. But just telling me he's a phony because you lived in DC for 13 years won't make make much of a dent in the conservative arguments of his I've been reading for well over a decade, though. Take all the time you need.
Keith
Of course Krauthammer succeeded in a liberal town: he's the right kind of "conservative" --one who likes to smear Catholics and Christians while giving rank Marxists like Obama the benefit of the doubt. The fact you point to his success as evidence of his conservative bona fides shows just how clueless you are. Since apparently we're getting personal, I don't post on this blog anymore, and part of the reason is that your writing is now featured on it. Speaking of posts, are you going to do a full length on which male relative you believe may have molested Rod Dreher, or is that little defamation suit in the making only comment worthy?
Deletere: Krauthammer: here's an oldie but goodie, in which Charles suggests the Gospel is a *blood libel*. No wonder they love him in DC!
Deletehttp://www.shlomohsherman.com/literary/essays/passion/bloodlib.html
Speaking of posts, are you going to do a full length on which male relative you believe may have molested Rod Dreher, or is that little defamation suit in the making only comment worthy?
DeleteShow me where I said that, Kathleen, and I'll let you know.
Keith
re: Krauthammer: here's an oldie but goodie, in which Charles suggests the Gospel is a *blood libel*.
DeleteGiven what you just attributed to me, Kathleen, I can easily understand your misinterpretation of the more complex Krauthammer post you linked and the European religious history of anti-Semitic pogroms it invokes.
Keith
Right, Keith. My primitive mind just can't understand the wondrous complexity that is Charles Krauthammer.
DeleteKeith, since you asked:
Delete"AnonymousSeptember 30, 2013 at 7:30 PM
Given the way he found himself "fried" by the Scandals in ways ordinary Catholics didn't, Keith the Psychic throws an open wager on the table: there is something deeper in Dreher's past involving what he regards as the sexual molestation of young Dreher he has yet to talk about publicly.
It'll be something more than a prank de-panting, and it could easily involve an older relative.
Something not lightweight is driving his life long hysteria about sex, morality, and his salvation.
Keith"
Damn, Keith, I thought maybe you were smart enough to delete this comment -- but no. Meanwhile I really dig your righteous pose of "show me where I said such a thing!" Or wait ... you're going to insist it's a matter of interpretation, right?
DeleteWell, I've just removed myself from this blog, in any case. No more posts from me.
DeleteKathleen, I had bookmarked that comment yesterday before I replied to you, which is why I felt comfortable replying to you in the way I did.
DeleteAs you can see, the two statements, what I said and what you incorrectly attributed to me, differ materially, and significantly so.
Keith
You "bookmarked" it? What the hell does that mean? Whatever "bookmarking" is (unless it's time-travel and erasing the comment's very existence) I cannot imagine what made you feel comfortable replying the way you did.
DeleteA real genius move would have been to delete it. says this lawyer.
DeleteWhat type of law are you qualified to practice, Kathleen?
DeleteKeith
Keith, seriously, I'd quit while you're ahead. You are way out of your league.
DeleteI'm qualified to practice whatever the hell type of law I want. There are barely any restrictions on lawyers admitted to the bar. Does that answer your inane question?
DeleteYes, Kathleen, it does, completely. Thanks.
DeleteKeith
When are you going to tell me what "bookmarking that comment" means? Because this caveman lawyer still has no idea.
DeleteAnd on the other thread, I'm still waiting for you to tell me why the Gospel isn't a story. Help me out, Keith! My primitive mind....
DeleteKathleen, to "bookmark" a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) or Web address is to save it in a Web browser so that one can return to it easily with an input device like a keyboard or mouse. For example, this is the URL of the comment in which you raise the question. You may bookmark it for easy future reference in your Web browser.
DeleteBecause most Christians believe the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to be the word of God and because those of other religions like Krauthammer who respect them would also honor their beliefs, the Gospels are usually referred to by those sorts of people by their unique honorary titles, the Gospels or Gospel, rather than the more generically indiscriminate and thus more profane term "story".
Thus when Krauthammer used the term "story", he was referring to that historical narrative derived from the Gospels which the Second Vatican Council felt compelled to repudiate in Part 4 of Nostra Aetate. The "blood libel" Krauthammer was referring to was that historical narrative derived from the Gospels which the Second Vatican Council itself finally felt compelled to repudiate in 1965, not the Gospels themselves.
Keith
So how does your "bookmarking" of your comment refute my point in any way? Of what possible relevance is it to anyone that you "bookmarked" your comment?
DeleteOh, and thanks for your, um, clarification regarding the story of the Gospel. So, the Gospel "story" is the "historical narrative derived from the Gospels". As in, if any Christian dares recount the Passion in a way not thoroughly approved by Charles Krauthammer, well, that's a blood libel! Thanks for your clarification, Keith! Brilliant!
(Of course, the question remains: does Charles Krauthammer approve of the way Matthew, Mark, Luke or John "derived their historical narrative" of the Gospel? And if so, well, what makes them so freakin' special?)
Delete"Thus when Krauthammer used the term "story", he was referring to that historical narrative derived from the Gospels which the Second Vatican Council felt compelled to repudiate in Part 4 of Nostra Aetate."
DeleteInteresting. You seem to know a great deal about this Keith, especially for someone who is not Catholic. So what part of Gibson's movie exactly was in conflict with "Part 4 of Nostra Aetate"? Because Krauthammer doesn't tell us and neither do you. But you must know, right? Can't you find it somewhere in Krauthammer's crazy-precise writings?
Keith, the more I read your "answers" the more confused I am. The Gospels are the "Word of God" and therefore not a "historical narrative"? Please elaborate, for Krauthammer's sake.
Delete*crickets*
DeleteKrauthammer got slammed by Rush today, justifiably, as someone who got blindsided by Obama's leftiness. I simply can't appreciate pundits who are dumber than I am about politics (see also, Peggy Noonan).
ReplyDeletekathleen
Meanwhile, raising the bar for VFYT.
ReplyDeleteVFYT and TWOLRL together? But of course! What meal would be complete without it?
DeleteOh brother dear,
I do sincerely fear
that I shall never taste
Your leering bouillabaisse.
For all slimy things
From across the oily seas
I do see herein;
They're sitting here
In my bowl
And staring back at me.
As my grandmother said, "Don't analyze it; eat it."
DeleteHey, that looks like a bottle of prune juice....
I really think the reason you guys spend so much time on this blog is that you don't know about Realm of the Mad God. It's addictive.
ReplyDelete