Williamson Athwart Again

by Brad Nelson   3/9/14

Despite all my rants online in various forms, I actually hold very few people or things in contempt. Amongst those relatively few are Al Gore, Bill Clinton, B. Hussein Obama (and his administrative gadflies), Hillary Clinton, mandatory fluorescent light bulbs, and “early childhood education” (which encapsulates Communism and all forms of Leftist mind-bullying, so it is a very big category indeed).

Joe Biden is not included amongst this crowd because, after all, how can you dislike a clown? But there is one clown who garners my contempt, and that is Jon Leibowitz (aka “Jon Stewart”).

What gets me about Leibowitz is that he manages to degrade three things at the same time: politics, comedy, and talk show hosts (although two of three need very little help in this regard).

I’ll not bother to tell you why, for Kevin Williamson has done the hard work. He must have woken up the other morning and eaten his Wheaties for he demolishes this clown, “Stewart,” in ways I could have never imagined.

Here’s a couple excerpts from his article, The Destroyer Cometh:

Mr. Stewart is the host of a fake news show, the genesis of which probably was a conversation that went approximately like this: Brother-in-Law: “There’s nothing funny on Saturday Night Live except the ‘Weekend Update.’ They should really just do that for the whole show.” Jon Stewart: “Hey . . . !” Mr. Stewart is among the lowest forms of intellectual parasite in the political universe, with no particular insights or interesting ideas of his own, reliant upon the very broadest and least clever sort of humor, using ancient editing techniques to make clumsy or silly political statements sound worse than they are and then pantomiming outrage at the results…

And…

Mr. Stewart is the leading voice of the half-bright Left because he is a master practitioner of the art of half-bright vitriolic denunciation. His intellectual biography is that of a consummate lightweight — a William and Mary frat boy who majored in psychology, which must have been a disappointment to his father, a professor of physics…

And surely one reason some are calling Williamson the new “Steyn” at NRO is because of quips such as this:

…and a career-boosting stint on MTV, where he was second only to Beavis and Butt-Head in the ratings. He subsequently may have matched Beavis and Butt-Head’s popularity, but he has never risen to comparable heights of social insight.

Reading a take-down of cultural buffoons such as Stewart, instead of elevating them (cough…Christ Christie…cough), is tonic for the soul, especially when it comes to the increasingly Establishment-oriented and PC National Review Online.

This article comes on the heels of Williamson’s brilliant take-down of feminism, The Feminist Mystique, which was covered by me here. (Me me me!!!! It’s all about MEEEE…Sorry, I was getting too much into the spirit of Leibowitz’s idiotic and pretentious humor. I apologize.)

Brilliant job, Kevin.
__________________________________________________
Have a blog post you want to share? Click here. • (1576 views)

Share
Brad Nelson

About Brad Nelson

I like books, nature, politics, old movies, Ronald Reagan (you get sort of a three-fer with that one), and the founding ideals of this country. We are the Shining City on the Hill — or ought to be. However, our land has been poisoned by Utopian aspirations and feel-good bromides. Both have replaced wisdom and facts.

This entry was posted in Blog Post. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Williamson Athwart Again

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    Yes, I read that article too, though I don’t recall commenting on it because I’ve never seen Stewart (except when he appears on O’Reilly) and have no plans to start doing so. As for Biden being a clown, I like to call him the Yellow Jester from the King Crimson song “The Court of the Crimson King”. That song also gives me the Crimson King (Barack Obama), the Black Queen (Michelle Obama), and the Fire Witch (Hillary Clinton).

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Fire Witch (Hillary Clinton)

      I believe you have a typo there, Timothy. I’ll let you fix it.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Well, another word that reminds with “witch” might be more apt for Slick Hilly, but “fire witch” is what’s in the song.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          By the way, I’ve rarely seen Stewart as well. But it doesn’t take long to figure out that the man is a demagogue of the lowest degree. He is the creator of, and member of, the sneer culture. I think it works like this: The “self-esteem” generation hasn’t really had that esteem “take.” They don’t feel better about themselves. Most of their causes and beliefs are wafer-thin and built on fraudulence. I think somewhere in most people’s minds, they know this.

          So the only way to build this sense of being better than others is to ritually abuse and otherwise denigrate George Bush (or whomever). One guy on this site I told to leave simply because he kept blaming George Bush for everything. If this site is anything it is to be a shelter from that kind of insanity. Bush is responsible for many failures, but he is not responsible for anyone’s personal unhappiness.

          Stewart is an emotional parasite. He’s a perfect fit though for this culture of ninnies and narcissists.

          • Ron says:

            That guy who “kept blaming George Bush for everything” is me, I guess.

            How strange that you remember it that way, Brad.

            Perhaps other readers might like to review the comments on Timothy’s article: http://www.stubbornthings.org/synoptic-media-speaking-lies-behalf-power/, which was my only real participation on this site, and judge for themselves the “facts” of your assertion.

            I learned a lot from the discussion of the corporate liberal media with Timothy, Kung Fu and Nahalkides, and appreciate the respect they showed in that debate.

            But you seem to like arguing with straw liberals only, Brad. Real ones cause real problems in your smooth discourse, no doubt.

            Really though, is the conservative cause so weak that it can’t handle honest questions from an old man?

            • Timothy Lane says:

              I will note here that since Brad didn’t mention specifically who he was talking about, it may have been someone other than you. This site had been operating for many months before I heard about it from CCWriter on NRO. In addition, one must remember that memory is imperfect; Brad might easily have recalled your contributions as being more oriented to Bush-hatred than you think. (I didn’t recall all the details, and I wrote the original article and many of the posts.)

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              Get over yourself, Ron. And praising my friends as a way to isolate me won’t work. I’ve seen that game played before. (And, by the way, my friends are more than welcome to criticize me. That’s why we’re friends.)

              Ron, you’re just the same sour note here that you were before, more intent on comparing dick sizes and scoring points than engaging in intelligent conversation.

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    Meanwhile, I notice that in the newest issue, Mark Steyn has been replaced by Jonah Goldberg on the last page. This could simply be temporary, but I saw no explanation for the change.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      If Mark Steyn is too controversial for them, I’d like to know what NRO’s mission statement is. No, not the one they prop up over the door that is just for-show. I mean their real one.

      The mission statement here, for example, is to have fun, be creative, share your knowledge and opinions, bask in the glory that is Western Civilization, and help to roll back the Leftist horde.

      (I say this in general, and not to Tim.) If you don’t have an opinion, then fine. Enjoy reading some of the thoughts of others. But if you do, what are you waiting for? Stand up. It’s an open mike. The place is yours. Don’t die not having said your piece. Take control of this place. Own it.

      And I mean that literally. Glenn Fairman owns the place at the moment, and I like that he does. He has something to say, and very important things to say. If he, or anyone else, shoots me a string of ten articles and/or blog posts (and they’re of decent, but by no means perfect, quality), I’ll put them up. The site will be yours. And repeating a few old Bob Hope jokes won’t get you banned. In fact, the more the better.

  3. Timothy Lane says:

    I want to point out that Ramesh Ponnuru has an excellent article on the subject of religious liberty vs. libertinism (especially regarding homosexual “marriage”) in the March 24 National Review. The only flaw I could find in it is that he didn’t refer to the proper treatment of discrimination against homosexuals as the pro-choice position. In addition, Jonathan Goodman has an interesting discussion of various proposals for healthcare reform. One thing I’ll mention is that one thought I’ve had on the subject of portability is that people who get health insurance at work would be able to take it with them as a personal policy if they wish to do so (of course, they’d have to pay the premiums themselves); Goodman discusses the problem but speaks only generally of possible solutions.

  4. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Make it a trifecta. Williamson stands athwart again, this time regarding abortion in a fairly good article titled The Symbol of a Lie. He debunks a few myths and — astonishingly — is not just a hand-wringer in regards to abortion but, as my older brother says, is actually for the abolition of it (with his noted exceptions):

    While many abortion opponents, myself included, would not see the abolition of abortion except in cases associated with the unholy trinity — rape, incest, and situations in which an abortion is medically necessary to save a woman’s life — as a victory in principle, it would as a practical matter amount to the wholesale prohibition of abortion. Despite the fictions peddled by the ladies and gentlemen with wire-hanger pendants around their necks, the share of abortions performed for any plausible life-saving reason and in cases of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest is vanishingly small.

    I might have broken the above thought into a couple of sentences. But Williamson is clear and non-mealy-mouthed. And he demolishes the asinine libertarian argument for abortion:

    I recently wrote a piece about Senator Rand Paul’s presidential aspirations, and one critic inquired as to why I did not write about his pro-life stance, which he took to be incompatible with the senator’s generally libertarian tendencies. Woman’s body, woman’s choice, right? That is, in my view, one of the all-time great instances of question-begging in our political discourse: If I thought there were one body involved, I’d be pro-choice. But there are two bodies involved — by any meaningful standard that is the case, which is why the pro-choice side of the argument is always forced to retreat into metaphysics, the so-called personhood question.

    One should, of course, be very careful about supposedly “anti-abortion” advocates who also aren’t also abolition-of-abortion advocates. To be only the former is to be a mere poser. And I don’t know where Rand Paul is on this. Has he tried to introduce a law? I don’t know.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      It’s no surprise that a liberal would think abortion is inherently anti-libertarian and anti-female, since their consciences (to the extent they have any) don’t permit them to acknowledge that abortion means taking (unborn) life. This is why, on the rare occasions that I’ve seen support for abortion separated out by sex, men were more favorable to it than women. Whatever most libertarians may think on the subject, there is nothing inherently anti-libertarian about abortion, and the Libertarian Party candidate for New Jersey governor in 1997 ran a pro-life campaign against a pair of pro-abortion candidates (Whitman and McGreedy).

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I was listening to Dennis Prager yesterday. And he said basically that the “thou shall nots” don’t resonate with the Left. They don’t want prohibitions on their behavior, at least regarding sex and drugs (and presumably rock ‘n roll as well). But they will restrict “choice” in just about all other areas.

        Here’s another good quote from Dennis Prager while I’m on the subject of Prager: “If you can choose your gender, why can’t you choose your race?….If gender isn’t fixed then race isn’t fixed.”

        And he went on to make the very point that Obama, in fact, did choose his race. He’s half white and half black. He chose the black to identify with.

  5. Timothy Lane says:

    Jack Kerwick has an interesting article available today on TownHall which posits that most conservatives today (at least in the political elite) are in fact neoconservatives, who are very different from paleoconservatives. The neos, as defined by their leading intellectual forebear (Irving Kristol), are Rooseveltian types who like an activist government, though one behaving more responsibly than the leftists do. He points out that virtually no one (including National Review and Fox News, which is why I mention it here) seems willing to criticize Kristol and his movement. So this may explain the anomalies we’ve seen in NR since Buckley (who was clearly paleo in his conservatism) departed the scene.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      It is human nature to adjust to any system of thought until it becomes the default engine inside one’s mind. And the act of rationalizing, and the nature of corrupt self-interest (particularly when politics and money are involved), may make self-reflection an inconvenient act. But without due honest soul-searching and reflection, one might not be aware of that default engine inside one’s head or how it got there.

      First and foremost, conservatism is a rational act, not a case of running off half-cocked on emotion or simply taking up an idea by complete unreflective habit. And it’s certainly not about rationalizing errors or corrupt self-interested behavior.

      Part of the thrust of Western Civilization is the ability and willingness to think beyond norms. And not with the intent to “deconstruct” (that is, to destroy) as Cultural Marxism does. But to understand something honestly and deeply…to gain new perspectives (not new and stilted orthodoxies as with Cultural Marxism). So it is with conservatism as well.

      There is no paleo-conservatism and there is no neo-conservatism. There is only conservatism. It’s akin to the idea of “social justice.” It’s not justice anymore if you have to put a modifier in front of it.

      That’s not to say that we will all understand conservatism in the same way. But I would say that 95% of the principles are clear and unambiguous. How we apply them, of course, is as much an art as a science (and probably much more of a moral exercise).

      I accept that compared to these various false or pseudo-conservatives (aka “neo-cons”) that Buckley is, in some way, a “paleo”-conservative. That is, compared to the many newfangled strains of false conservatism, he held the “old” (or true) type of conservatism.

      Or just conservatism.

  6. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Kevin Williamson has joined the chorus of Establishment apologists, although not quite as obnoxiously as some of the others: Which Side Are You On?

    Here’s my response to a good comment by Nik:

    In order to save the country, we first must defeat the Establishment.

    That’s right. And I don’t understand the gist of Kevin’s article. Was it his turn to put his lips on the Republican Establishment’s backside and blow? That’s what it seems like these days at NRO.

    Having voted for Romney, I get the idea of voting for the lesser of two evils. But the real issue here is about defeating Progressive Republicans and/or Republicans who are okay with the status quo, as long as they get to run it. There is no point whatsoever of voting in Democrats Lite who will simply hold the tiller of the ship where it is until the next round of Democrats gain the majority and move that tiller further Left. And the cycle starts all over again.

    For the first time I’m of the mind to stay home and let that party rot if they serve up a Jeb Bush or a Chris Christie. Unless we can get out from under this party-for-party’s sake thinking, we will overlook the fact that the real enemy is Big Government. And both parties, at least at the national level, are for it. I can trust Ted Cruz to take steps to start to repeal it, but there are only a half dozen others that I think would do the same.

    These constant appeals by the NRO media to try to lubricate the Republican Establishment so that it goes down (in?) smoother are counterproductive. A better use of resources would be to promote conservatism, interview some of the conservative candidates, promote the Tea Party at every opportunity, and every so often take a rhetorical lash and beat the backsides of the various RINOS who, in some ways, are worse than the Democrats because they get in the way of the real reformers.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      This makes a good place to bring up Steve Deace’s “Never Trust a Republicrat” in today’s TownHall. He differentiates between RINOs (who at least run as relatively liberal Republicans) and Republicrats (who run as conservatives but then act like RINOs when it really counts). This is an especially serious a problem for Republican leaders; Trent Lott was much better as a back-bencher than as Senate leader, for example. And as for John Boehner . . .

  7. Timothy Lane says:

    Speaking to Ron’s response to me, I can say that it’s remarkable to be called a peacemaker. As one who differentiates between trolls (who seek to enrage in order to justify their own hatred of dissenters) from those who merely disagree, I have no objection to your presence. Note, though, that this isn’t my website.

    As for the specific charge, when I looked through your postings you do seem to have a great deal of anti-Bush prejudice, which may simply reflect the information sources available to you. Having referred to “George Worthless Bush” with regard to his immigration policy (and I could have said the same of his spending and a few other errors), I’m not committed to a pro-Bush attitude. But it seems clear to me that the synoptic media, in their partisan zeal to defeat him (and elect John Fresno Kerry), were ready to smear Bush and ignore serious criticisms of Kerry.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *