The Council Speaks

Gates of Vienna placed first with a post examining the barbarous “justice” meted out in Saudi Arabia and the US government’s failure to condemn the actions of the Saudi government against the helpless. The Saudi system of laws is morally repugnant; so is our government’s failure to address it.

RightWing Nut House followed closely behind. Mr. Moran describes how difficult it is for bloggers to find sufficient news for their posting during the holidays. However, happening across a piece of “jaw-dropping idiocy” written by Craig Crawford of MSNBC allows Mr. Moran to save the day as he takes Crawford to the cleaners and teaches him a little history to boot.

Posting a long clip from Crawford’s review of a TV program, Mr. Moran skewers it:

Taking the last part to begin, the first thing one notices about this piece is that Crawford is laughably ignorant of history. To reference “constitutional rights” and “Patrick Henry” in the same breath is, to put it mildly, loony. Henry, like most of the more radical patriots who were in the forefront of the movement for independence, became unreconstructed opponents of the Constitution during the ratification debate. They saw it as something of a counter-revolution, an overreaction to the weaknesses inherent in the Articles of Confederation. Not only that, the establishment of a strong chief executive as well as mandating a Supreme Court who could overrule Congress was an anathema to patriots like Henry.

Correct. Patrick Henry was loyal to Virginia, not to some piece of paper whose articles went against his political philosophy. Patrick Henry was dead serious about liberty and in his view, that did not include any Constitution, thank you.

Neo-neocon is a most interesting blogger. She easily took first place in the non-council section with a post that is prototypical of her writing style (pellucid, like Laura Ingalls Wilder) and her subject. Of the latter — the gradual conversion of liberals to a more conservative political philosophy — Neo has no end of fans whose journey has been much the same, and who face similar ostracism if they go public with their views:

But over the past couple of years I've spoken out to virtually every friend I have, and gotten quite a variety of responses. A few have stopped speaking to me, and that makes me both sad and angry. Many look at me ever after with "that look" in their eyes--at least, I perceive that look, and I don't think I'm imagining things. It appears that my relationship with them has changed in some subtle way, and not for the better; they now see me as strange and somehow not quite trustworthy or kindly.

As you read the long list of comments you’re reminded of what it used to mean to gays to have to live underground. Everyone sounds so exhausted from the pretense, and so relieved when they stumble across “one of us.” Since I have to assume this posture whenever I go into Lil’ Kumquat — the nearest town with latte and a Barnes and Noble — I experience it second hand. Lil’ Kumquat is sooo blue they have the singular honor to be the only place in our state that voted for McGovern. I even had my 2004 moment when a Bluie gave me the evil eye and mumbled something about “this country” being “polarized” as I thumbed through a David Horowitz book — the warmth of her breath and the high color on her face warned me that this was the absolute limit of her courtesy and I’d better drop that book right now. Of course, being a trouble-making Irish woman, I just smiled at her and went back to thumbing my nose the heretical pages. ‘Tis a wicked glee one enjoys to see Righteousness storm off. I was grateful she didn’t think to spill my latte into my lap.

There were two nominations tied for second place in the non-council posts, Cavalier’s Guardian Watchblog and Dinocrat.

The Cavalier has a luverly list of tongue-in-cheek helpful New Year’s resolutions for the Left Among Us. For one thing, they can stop being so reasonable, they can invent catchy phrases like “Bush lied, people died.” And they can complain about America, and their lack of free speech. They can promote Mrs. Sheehan and Michael Berg…(oh, dear. I don’t get out enough. Who is Michael Berg? Mrs. S’ paramour perhaps? I’ll ask Wally Ballou. He knows everything).

Here’s Cavalier's #7 suggestion to give you the flavor:

7. Increase your demands for the government to acknowledge that so-called "terrorists" have the same Constitutional rights and legal protections as so-called "Americans." We're all citizens of the world, and one person's "terrorist" is another person's "freedom fighter," right? If the law is to be truly fair to everyone, all moral judgments must be suspended. Well, don't put it in precisely those words, but you know what I mean.

Heh.

Meanwhile, Dinocrat tied this with a post which considers the fascinating topic (one I’ve idled over myself), “Reporters or lawyers: who will get us killed first?” They are so neck-in-neck, cheek-by-jowl on their slippery slide down the moral slope it’s hard to pick a winner. Or to tell the winner from the loser, being as lawyers and reporters are both pretty muddy by now. Dinocrat finishes up his post on security leaks this way:

We all know the famous line of Shakespeare on lawyers. Here’s another, from the grave scene in Hamlet: Why might not that be the skull of a lawyer? Where be his quiddits now, his quillets, his cases, his tenures, and his tricks? Why does he suffer this rude knave now to knock him about the sconce with a dirty shovel, and will not tell him of his action of battery? Hum! Too bad the bard never took on journalists as well. We will all end up like poor Yorick eventually — we only wish the reporters and lawyers would stop doing their damndest to hasten the journey.

As usual, a fine feast at the Watcher’s blog. Check them out. To name a few, Varifrank, TMH Bacon Bits, American Digest…and from the Caribbean, feisty Caribpundit.

Never can tell who’s going to show up, or from where.