The Voice of Dreher and his Commenters

What do you do with Dreher's commenters? I mean besides laughing at them after they leave the room. In our emperorography, those which agree with him play the parts of the townsfolk at the end of fable.

However there is a passage which may have even more applicability to the commenters on Dreher's blog. It comes from the second volume of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy, The Two Towers, and is a description of the attempt of the defeated, evil wizard Saruman to use the power of his voice to mesmerize his enemies.

Suddenly another voice spoke, low and melodious, its very sound an enchantment. Those who listened unwarily to that voice could seldom report the words that they heard; and if they did, they wondered, for little power remained in them. Mostly they remembered only that it was a delight to hear the voice speaking, all that it said seemed wise and reasonable, and desire awoke in them by swift agreement to seem wise themselves. When others spoke they seemed harsh and uncouth by contrast; and if they gainsaid the voice, anger was kindled in the hearts of those under the spell. For some the spell lasted only while the voice spoke to them, and when it spake to another they smiled, as men do who see through a juggler's trick while others gape at it. For many the sound of the voice alone was enough to hold them enthralled; but for those whom it conquered the spell endured when they were far away. And ever they heard that soft voice whispering and urging them. But none were unmoved; none rejected its pleas and its commands without an effort of mind and will, so long as its master had control of it.

I've often wondered if this is where George Lucas got the concept of the Jedi mind trick. It is very similar, especially in that the trick only works on the weaker minds, and there appears to be a certain magic which imbues the speaker's voice. It would explain why someone like Erin Manning continues to support Dreher even though he constantly bashes her religion and never once has pimped her books the way he has with Charles Featherstone. Maybe her nickname should be Wormtongue.

This analogy of some people being conquered by subtle writing also explains why people have become so irritated with us, going the whole way back to the Contra-Crunchies. When others spoke they seemed harsh and uncouth by contrast; and if they gainsaid the voice, anger was kindled in the hearts of those under the spell. We were stating long-form the words of Gimli the Dwarf who said of Saruman "The words of this wizard stand on their heads!" and we were receiving back insults not unlike "If we speak of poisoned tongues what shall we say of yours, young serpent?" which was Saruman's retort to Prince Eomer. (Except we were called incredible fools and nematodes rather than "young serpents".)

And, as always, we continue to receive the epitaph "obsessed" from people who show up over and over again to elaborate on their fierce agreement with Dreher's designer brand of paleoconservatism. And ever they heard that soft voice whispering and urging them...

The history of Dreher is also very much like the character Saruman the Wizard. He starts off as an up-and-coming "power" in the world of conservative commentating, but then he begins cashing in friendships and doing things secretly which are later exposed, arousing his anger. "When the plot is ripe it remains no longer secret," as Gandalf reminds us. He ends up stuck in an old "tower" called TAC—long deserted by the "greater men" of the West who built it—viewing wreckage all around him.

By no means should anyone think that I'm suggesting that Voice-of-Saruman analogy can only be applied to Dreher. Sullivan's minions act in much the same way, as if he himself has wound them up. You can almost see the keys sticking out of their backs. And reading the Daily Kos is revealing of how deep the brainwashing rabbit-hole goes. And I would be remiss not to mention our current President whose ability as an orator is probably his only real talent. It is just sad to see educated people who really should know better fall under this sort of wordsmith spell.

Biden Contra Mundum

Joe Biden forgets his lines again in his most recent gaffe. What number are we up to? Excerpt:

Vice President Joe Biden on Wednesday ripped into congressional Republicans for not passing a gas tax increase to shore up the Highway Trust Fund.

The only problem? The White House doesn’t support a gas tax increase, either.

"Hell, Congress can’t even decide on a gas tax to keep the highway system going,” Biden said during an event Wednesday on ensuring unaccompanied minors crossing the U.S-Mexico border have access to lawyers.

But here’s what White House press secretary Josh Earnest said when asked about a gas tax hike in June: “I believe that’s something that we’ve said a couple of times that we wouldn’t support.”

Not surprisingly, an increase in the gas tax would be a difficult position for vulnerable Democrats to take ahead of the November midterms.

Like I've said before, Joe Biden remains one of the biggest "non-political" reasons not to attempt to impeach the current president.

In case of the rapture... or Google...

Remember our old Dangerous Ideas posts from days of yore? Well, I give you the whole Google robot car debacle-waiting-to-happen.

I actually heard grown men discussing the benefits of driverless cars with serious faces the other day. "Of course," said one, "you'd have to make sure everyone else on the road has a special transmitting device so the driverless cars 'knows' about them." Oh great, I thought, so these things are blind as well as looking totally retarded?

Immediately I was reminded of a Jack Handey deep thought: "I wish a robot would get elected President. That way, when he came to town, we could all take a shot at him and not feel too bad." It might be fun to goof on these puppies, maybe spray paint the Apple logo on them, or tag them with that bumper sticker about the rapture, etc. But wear your ninja outfit; I'm sure they have wireless cams all over them with a lawyer or two on the other end.

And speaking of lawyers, I'm sure there are some ambulance chasers strategizing how you might sue the deep-pocketed GOOG over these marvels. Who would likely win a "she said / it said" case?

Tattoo Subtexts

I take many opportunities to point out to my kids that getting a tattoo is usually a huge mistake. It is obvious to people who think critically that tattoos invariably send messages to people who see them, mostly negative. Steve Sailer provides a nice, short quip about tattoo subtexts, quoting the New Yorker first:

Commenter slumber_j points to this New Yorker cartoon about "The subtext of all tattoos:" "Ask me about my parents' divorce."

Then he adds his own wisdom:

A related subtext might be: "I come from a long line of rash decisionmakers." On women, tattoos often seem to imply: "Pay attention to me because I, obviously, make poor choices, so you might get lucky."

It was so sad for me to see a thin, attractive sixteen-year-old girl with otherwise beautiful skin who had basically ruined the first impression she made by getting tats all over her arms. This was in the Rocky River, OH Target. Does she not realize that she doesn't need to call attention to herself? The subtext which came to my mind at the time was "I want all the wrong guys to pay attention to me."

I have many other tattoo disaster stories with which I could bore readers involving people whom I've known. Most of them involve the same sort of screaming subtexts. There are all kinds of ad campaigns going on to persuade people to not discriminate against the "tattooed", as if this is some type of genetic condition. If I were a minority who had suffered from bigotry due to my skin color or appearance due to my race, these campaign would enrage me. The "tattooed" have no one to blame but themselves if they suffer discrimination. Maybe I'll start a campaign which promotes this message: "It's OK to admit that you regret getting your tattoos."

Anniversary gift warning for dudes

Guys, don't be stupid, talk to her friends if you're clueless.



Don't buy your wife a bankrupt city!!

"I want steak-ums."

Worst Cover of Mack the Knife. Ever.

And I like the Furs too.

Another Man's Statesmanship

I had promised J-Carp and some others a month ago when this David Brooks piece came out that I would be blogging on it. Part of the reason it has taken me awhile is that I wanted the perfect approach to address what is so laughable about what appears on the surface to be a narration of someone's illness and death from an aggressive form of cancer. I think I found the approach in the article in the fifth paragraph.

Dreher, one of the country’s most interesting bloggers, captured Ruthie’s illness in real time. “It’s so beautiful to see it’s almost painful,” he wrote the night of the [fund-raising] concert, “and so unreal in its generosity that you think it must have been a movie.”

There are two images here and the second one, the likening of the experience to a movie, is worth exploring. Brooks's article is sort of like the review of that movie, but I always preferred TV Guide blurbs to reviews, both to write and to read. Here's my blurb:

Rocked by his sister's sudden death, a struggling writer moves back to the small Southern town of his youth replete with strange and eccentric characters.

That's more of a first impression, I'll admit, and blurbs do little to convey anything but the most general of themes. I'll leave it to others to come up with a title for this blockbuster along with the casting, the front graphic for the Bluray box, etc.

Another aspect of film is changing a story to ensure correspondence of the content to the targeted audience. This is a family drama, I assume, about at least somewhat religious people, so I'm thinking that the character of the one-legged stripper would be either greatly moderated to a more standard floozy of the Violet Bick variety or simply left on the floor of the cutting room.

I think this character would have to be considered by the screen writers and not simply ignored since she is mentioned by the protagonist of the film in, not one, but four separate blog posts. This was all at the time of his sister's funeral. Do you know what the word obsession means, boys and girls? Then he brings it up again in November in a Sunday opinion article for the Dallas Morning News which I'm pretty sure gets more readership than the American Conservative, lest anyone miss it who follows Rod Dreher slightly like Pikkumatti. Here's the pertinent excerpt:

After Ruthie died, I was drinking beer (again) with her friends. Somebody brought up the one-legged stripper at the redneck bar just over the state line in Mississippi. Holy Flannery O’Connor, I thought, this is too good to be true. Then someone pulled his BlackBerry out and showed us all a photo of the half-naked woman, hanging off the pole, rocking that one leg.

“Yeah, I’d heard about her,” an old man said. “Ol’ Terry, he went up there one time and asked for a lap dance. Her leg come off. He was kind of surprised by that.”

I listened to this and thought: Why, exactly, am I living outside the South?

Stop reading for a moment and think about that. Let it sink in.

Yeah, good ol' Terry.

I didn't realize that in the south that a man can indulge in pornography, and as long as the woman providing you with her services is crippled, all is forgiven. Charity, right? Neat.

There is a link on that page that reads Rod Dreher: Reliving the sacrifice of Christ, through modern-day martyrs. This writer claims to represent Christianity as well as Conservatism. Are the modern day Christian martyrs into lap dances?

I mentioned that a movie was the second image from that paragraph. The first image is brought up by Brooks when he writes "Dreher, one of the country’s most interesting bloggers, captured Ruthie’s illness in real time." It was initially the word captured which captured my attention. For some reason I thought about the famous incident where a tiger attacked Roy Horn of Siegfried and Roy fame. I would argue that things roaming wild and free in the world may be captured and used for a good purpose, but I would also argue that parading those things around in front of large crowds might not be a good purpose. In fact, it could be ultimately dangerous to the one holding the leash although, for a time, the captor may become materially enriched by the parading.

This is probably a good point at which to mention that the title of this blog post was taken from a quote by Milton Friedman, the libertarian economist who is mentioned at the end of Brooks's piece. You may want to Google it for the full quote. The insinuation is made that Friedman is not "communitarian" like the two hundred or so readers of The American Conservative. I guess he wasn't known for his backyard cookouts or play-by-play accounts of the illnesses of family members.

To me, everything in this whole episode reaffirms the incoherence of the reactionary alternative "conservatisms" which have been advanced by quasi-intellectuals in recent decades. Crunchy Conservatism is the poster boy for these, and falls apart upon close examination as fast as James Brown's most famous lyric. You preach about a locally grown diet, but you publicly rejoice when le Beaujolais Nouveau est arrivé. You prattle about getting away from technology and big business, but then coo about listening to Diana Krall on your iPod while your wife has a C-section. You lament the skankification of Miley Cyrus, yet you obsessively mention a one-legged stripper in close conjunction to the funeral of your sister. And relative to that topic, you express your anxiousness to move back close to where you can drink beer with buddies who carry around pictures of her engaged in her art.

This is the very essence of incoherence and to me bears no resemblance to Christianity or conservatism. Why would anyone take this man seriously on his pet religious topics when he fails to set a good example on the most basics virtues? Especially given that there is so much available to read elsewhere? Would a good Pagan or a good Jew talk about the glories of a strip joint which posted the sign "Tits for Tots" at Christmas?? I hope all the Catholic bloggers and others who had oodles or praise for Rod Dreher when Crunchy Conservatism came out are feeling more and more uncomfortable about ever having defended and endorsed this guy. Sure, no one is perfect and we should judge a man by the totality of his actions. But in this man's case, I see the totality getting darker and darker.

Thanks for reading my blog. For current commentary and what-not, visit the Est Quod Est homepage

Just Stop

A friend of mine is just losing it on Facebook. Here's the thing: I really don't think she has any idea that she is. She is "living out loud" and making sure her "friends" get multiple angles of her dirty laundry.

I know she doesn't read this blog, but if she happens to maybe this will wake her up. Facebook is basically an information-sharing service as I've noted before, and posting amounts to broadcasting to subscribers (a more accurate word than friends.) This person has over 200 such and, unless I'm very much mistaken, she is imprudent to be sharing such information with at least half of them. Possibly most of them, at least those who make a lot of the comments to her dirty laundry posts which have the most commentary by far on her page.

She basically has two ex-husbands at this point, although I'm not sure she has formally ended her relationship with the current one. Recently he has been found guilty of a crime involving a female who is a minor, hence the breakup. It was painful to read her posts about this on Facebook. Wouldn't it have been better to send private emails if she really felt she must keep people informed of developments? By the way, my description is purposely vague and censored, but I'll say no more. Her posts are far more graphic than the newspaper stories and yes, there were newspaper stories.

Now she has let go with a rant about a horrible thing her first husband told her children to characterize her. This is basically like handing the football to the other team. Now everybody who is a friend/subscriber gets to be splattered with the grime of his boorishness. Everybody at her page already knows he's a loser if they know her, so why do this? Does she want attention? She's blasting this out to 200+ people, some of whom are children from the look of the pictures. When they see her at church or at family gatherings or on the street what are they going to think? "There's the lady whose life is like the soaps."

She needs to just stop.

I like what Kathleen said in response to the piece I linked earlier with regard to self-censorship, which is basically what I want her to begin engaging in. "It's a bit like abstinence -- self-censorship is the most reliable form of privacy. and actually Facebook presents an excellent means of teaching this skill." Well, people who know me know that I'm all for self-governance. But I believe people know not what they do, so I keep putting these posts out like cigarette warning labels.

(Yeah, I'm mixing topics here, but that's a choice cartoon, is it not? Source.)

The Benefactor Factor

Dennis Prager writes about how government entitlement programs and increasing dependency of the populace on them don't destroy only the economy, but also the virtue of gratitude. Excerpt:

What entitlements do, and what the transformation of entitlements into rights does, is create a citizenry that increasingly lacks the most important character trait -- gratitude. Of all the characteristics needed for both a happy and morally decent life, none surpasses gratitude. Grateful people are happier, and grateful people are more morally decent. That is why we teach our children to say "thank you." But the welfare state undoes that. One does not express thanks for a right. So, instead of "thank you," the citizen of the welfare state is taught to say, "What more can I get?"

Yet, while producing increasingly selfish people, the mantra of the left, and therefore of the universities and the media, has been for generations that capitalism and the free market, not the welfare state, produces selfish people.

All too true.

In my opinion, another thing which sheds light on the dearth in gratitude among recipients is the impersonal nature of government assistance. At a soup kitchen you may see a smiling face presenting you with the gift of food, with many other volunteers scurrying about in the background to prepare the gift. But often the monetary assistance delivered to those being helped by Uncle Sam is in the form of mass-produced debit cards and checks chunked out by 3rd party processing centers. Some of these don't even say where they are from. They don't even have an official seal or an American flag on them. It's easy to see how this tends to engender an entitlement mentality. Actions speak louder than words, even Obama's applause lines.

But speaking of Obama's words, all this legislation he brags on seems to be moving entitlements to a new level of abstraction. Forcing insurance companies to cover "kids" up to 26 years old—and these companies will merely shrug and raise premiums—is an ingenious way to hide the entitlement and thus hide the fact that it is a gift from either parental guardians or taxpayers. Is as if liberal bureaucrats are saying "Don't thank us, just re-elect us and pay more taxes. We'll keep rigging the system for you."

10/20/2010 or 20-10-2010

Depending on where you live, it's either ten twenty twenty ten or twenty ten twenty ten. So that makes it a special day! Go do something stupid, like play the lottery or something.