From Curmudgeonly To Contemptible
National Review's painfully public self-immolation continues. A few recent tidbits from John Derbyshire, the latest on March 21st:
John Derbyshire is free to write and speak his mind, of course. But Ann Coulter was as well, and National Review decided that it didn't wish to associate itself with her. Unless NR's editors think mistakenly that their once-proud institution still has room to fall, it's time for them to show Derbyshire the door as well.
One doesn’t want to be accused of inhuman callousness; but I am willing to confess, and believe I speak for a lot of THWTHs (and a lot of other Americans, too) that the spectacle of Middle Eastern Muslims slaughtering each other is one that I find I can contemplate with calm composure.And for those who might have missed it, this on March 3rd:
In between our last two posts I went to Drudge to see what was happening in the world. The lead story was about a ship disaster in the Red Sea. From the headline picture, it looked like a cruise ship. I therefore assumed that some people very much like the Americans I went cruising with last year were the victims. I went to the news story. A couple of sentences in, I learned that the ship was in fact a ferry, the victims all Egyptians. I lost interest at once, and stopped reading. I don't care about Egyptians.To note, as I did last month in this post, that this atavistic tripe is contrary to the dynamic that underpins capitalism and free trade is to point out only one part of the problem here. In 2001, National Review severed its relationship with Ann Coulter after she wrote two typically bombastic pieces. Jonah Goldberg told WaPo's Howard Kurtz: "We didn't feel we wanted to be associated with the comments expressed in those two columns." I've always viewed Coulter's rants as profoundly unserious as well as in poor taste; I believe that most of what she spews is simply the product of an empty mind laboring to produce something substantive or thoughtful. I consider Derbyshire's rants to be in poor taste as well, but I also have no doubt that he believes deeply in what he writes. Farcically unserious bombast, and deadly serious xenophobia---which is worse?
John Derbyshire is free to write and speak his mind, of course. But Ann Coulter was as well, and National Review decided that it didn't wish to associate itself with her. Unless NR's editors think mistakenly that their once-proud institution still has room to fall, it's time for them to show Derbyshire the door as well.
9 Comments:
But he doesn't appear intemperate, so it's okay. Do you suppose the editors disagree with him?
Derbyshire has a sharp mind and he's a decent writer, plus he got beat up by Bruce Lee for a movie once.
That being said, he's a racist git in many ways. He once wrote something in NR along the lines of how once his wife and he were looking for a new house. Upon being given an address where they saw a few too many black people, they immediately fled without even viewing the place. He said this quite proudly. He's also a defender of the Abu Ghraib torturers.
Someone should check Derbyshire's computer for child porn, since he extolls the attractiveness of young teen girls.
what a piece of **it
Derb is the only writer at NRO worth reading. He is a racist, but he seems like an honest racist. I'd much rather read someone who puts all their cards on the table than mealymouthed gits like JPod or Goldberg.
Check out Derb's column today. He is actually supporting the notion that in a civilian democracy it is OK to criticize the military. He may have some old-fashioned crackpot views, but on balance he's by far the best NRO has.
I have been following a site now for almost 2 years and I have found it to be both reliable and profitable. They post daily and their stock trades have been beating
the indexes easily.
Take a look at Wallstreetwinnersonline.com
RickJ
What does "THWTH" stand for?
This is all terrible what you're saying.
I totally match with this article.
Post a Comment
<< Home