« Coming soon: Obama to GM, 'We Own You' |
Blog Home Page
| Solipsistic morality from the New York Times »
April 4, 2009
Blowhard NY Times contributor a paranoid loon (Updated)
His name is Charles Blow - no really, it is. I don't know exactly what he does for a living because this op-ed that appears in the New York Times today doesn't give us a clue. Perhaps he is the official liberal hand wringer. Or maybe he is the designated hysteria monger for the left.
Whatever he does, it is apparent he needs a change of underpants after trying to scare the crap out of the left with visions of bloody revolution, right wing terrorism, and conservative mobs running amuck:
What sparkling analysis! What scintillating observations! What wit! What insightful reasoning!
What a crock.
Mr. Blowhard is a liar. If he read more conservative commentary than what he has linked above, I will eat my William F. Buckley Memorial Skimmer. If he had, he would not have had a column to write. No one at NRO has called for a "revolution." No one at The Weekly Standard has written anything remotely resembling a tract that pronouces conservatives "isolated, betrayed, and besieged. I haven't even heard Rush Limbaugh urging conservatives to pick up a pitchfork and head to Washington. Nor has Mr. Blow read American Thinker, Pajamas Media, Powerline, Hot Air, Instapundit, Hugh Hewitt, Townhall, Outside the Beltway, or most of the other top 50 conservative blogs that, if not always objective in tone and substance, certainly fall far short of advocating or promoting "revolution" or "garbled facts" or "twisted logic" and most especially "veiled" hate speech.
That last, of course, is construed by liberals as any speech they happen to disagree with. In the case of Mr. Blow's op-ed, I might point out that there is nothing "veiled" at all about his hate; his entire screed is one long, lying, misrepresentation of the current state of conservative thought that descends to the depths of hysterical paranoia, gross and deliberate exaggeration, and a jaw dropping ignorance of who conservatives believe their "leaders" to be (or a coldly calculated attempt to deliberately mis-identify those leaders to make his idiotic thesis ring true).
Calling Michelle Bachman a conservative "leader" tells you right away this fellow has as much business writing an op-ed about conservatives as my pet cat Snowball. And at least Snowy would have enough character and honesty to actually peruse top conservative websites and writings instead of cherry picking blog posts from Think Progress or Crooks and Liars. It may come as a shock to Blow but not everything that appears on those shrines to liberal truth is "fair and balanced" either. Nor can I think of a single liberal site that has even a smidgen of balance when it comes to reporting on conservatives. The rank partisanship of the lefty blogosphere is as pronounced and dominant as it is on the right. That's showbiz on the internet.
But wait! Before you think Mr. Blowhard is just your typical liberal purveyor of false, misleading, and outright dishonest analysis of conservative opinion, get a load of this:
Where's Rush Limbaugh? Isn't he the liberal-identified "conservative leader?" Why no scary quotes from him? Evidently, Rush failed to cooperate with Mr. Blowhard and supply the requisite rant calling for "revolution." Limbaugh, for the most part, has been a rational conservative voice calling for better organizing, sharper messaging, and holding GOP lawmaker's feet to the fire to stand up for conservative principles. Not calling for violence on his show meant that Rush didn't make Mr. Blow's cut of conservative "leaders."
Instead, we are told that Chuck Norris is da man, a leading light of conservative thought. Norris is popular with some conservatives but I can't recall anything he ever said being taken seriously by anyone. It would be like saying Jeananne Garofolo is a liberal leader. People know who she is and she is quoted by liberals on occassion but does anyone believe that she is an important spokesperson for the left?
And how important is Glen Beck? There are tens of millions of conservatives in America and Beck has a show on Fox watched by a little more than a million people. If that makes him a "conservative leader" then it makes Al Franken a liberal leader - both clowns who I would be surprised if either were taken seriously by anyone with an IQ higher than 50.
How paranoid is Mr. Blow? The idea that any responsible conservative anywhere is trying to "mold" conservatives into militias is so far beyond the pale of rational discourse as to make the author a true leftist nutcase, a lost cause to reason and logic, and a quaking, shaking, quivering example of lefty delusional thinking.
Both sides have their nutcases - something Mr. Blow either forgot or failed to acknowledge. If he wants some examples, I invite him to visit my blog and pick any post at random. There he will find liberal idiocy in all its glory - paranoia, nauseating condenscension, and a hate so intense as to make the commenter unintelligable.
I might have expected a piece like this on Huffington Post or perhaps Firedoglake - that other liberal bastion of rank partisan hatred, skewed facts, and contextual dishonesty. The fact that it appears in the New York Times shouldn't surprise us, I guess, except that the Times is still billing itself as a newspaper. Maybe they should simply give in to their impulses and proclaim their switch to being just another liberal blog that traffics in lies, deciet, and towering hypocrisy.
Alright already. If you like Glenn Beck you have an IQ above 50. But agreeing with Mr. Blowhard that the talk show host is a "conservative leader" puts those of you waxing eloquent for Mr. Beck in sort of a strange position, no? It validates his thesis.
Why do conservatives insist on self-immolating behavior such as granting imbeciles like Beck any legitimacy? This is neither the time or the place (I want to enjoy my Saturday afternoon off thank you) to go into Beck's shortcomings but you might want to ask yourself why simply because you agree with his rants that this makes him a leading light of conservatism? My neighbor is a better ranter than Beck but I don't ascribe any special qualities to his ability to appeal to emotion. To my mind, there is little difference between Beck and Blow - neither ventures to argue using a logical framework for discussion nor do either of those two gentlemen grant their political opponents any legitimacy whatsoever. There is no rational basis for debate or discussion without both of those givens present.
Sorry for referring to Beckites as having the IQ of a coffee table. And I might add that my opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those held by The American Thinker editor or staff.