Wednesday, November 08, 2006


Allow me to quote Rod -- positively, for a change -- on the news that the GOP has lost the House of Representatives and perhaps even the Senate:
Nemesis always follows hubris.

Well said, Rod, and it is perhaps hubris of an especially irresponsible sort that seeks to hand the reins of power to a party wholly unserious about foreign policy during wartime just to punish the ones who are serious about facing our enemies, even if that party's weighed down by incompetence and corruption.

It's counter-productive and frankly moronic to give power to the party of John Kerry, Bill Clinton, and your precious Jimmy Carter, but with too small a tent for its 2000 vice-presidential nominee. It's counter-productive if, that is, you actually take seriously the threat of jihad and actually don't want another thirty years of appeasement and half-measures against an enemy with the will and increasingly the means to kill us and our allies by great numbers. As Cubeland Mystic pointed out, "this election now just about guarantees that all those little kindergarten males you see today will now certainly be fighting in wars twenty years from now." In matters of war and peace, modern Democrats are utterly incapable of wanting or even achieving a decisive victory.

But you should go ahead, tell us how "buoyant" you are after this defeat for those who are serious about foreign policy, and then continue to preach to us about hubris.

By acknowledging that nemesis always follows hubris, you've set the stage for another principle of Greek drama: irony.

Update, November 14th. Thomas Sowell has a great article out today, and it addresses precisely the sort of attitude Rod Dreher displayed as the election approached. It ought to go without saying that Rod wasn't the only self-professed conservative throwing such a temper tantrum; would that he were.
If the Republican leaders have learned nothing from their recent defeat, perhaps some Republican supporters will. Some of the most baffling e-mails received from conservative Republicans before the election were those which said that they were so disillusioned and/or disgusted with the Bush administration that they were going to vote for Democrats in order to send a message.

This is the kind of emotional self-indulgence common among liberals but apparently some conservatives have now also come to see elections as occasions to vent their feelings rather than to choose among existing options for the future of the country.

Sending a message may have its benefits but — as with all benefits — the question must be asked: "At what cost?"

On the Left, it is acceptable to say things like "open space" or "alternative fuels" without any thought of the cost. What is new is finding the same spirit now flourishing among some conservatives as well.

As events unfold over time, perhaps those conservatives will reconsider whether it was worth it to "send a message" to President Bush at the cost of making Senator Pat Leahy chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Senator Leahy’s control of that committee virtually guarantees that the only kind of federal judges who can get confirmed are the kind who are likely to spend decades on the bench creating new "rights" for criminals, illegal aliens, and terrorists.

Was that price even considered by conservatives who indulged their anger instead of weighing alternatives?

Counting the cost remains a sound principle that is too often ignored.


Blogger kathleen said...

Benedict is bouyant because he sees this election as a sanction of the ideas in his book, therefore he thinks this election is proof that he is a visionary (as he has suspected about himself all along).

anyway bubba, what are you worried about? doncha know we're going to have a democrat congress that is *more socially conservative* than the republican congress was? all is one, man. breathe. it's all good.

10:54 AM  
Blogger Pauli said...

You've probably read this, but if not, the brilliant Sowell.

11:59 AM  
Blogger pikkumatti said...

Actually, kathleen, it was the release of Crunchy Con in paperback that was the "tipping point" (to use a favorite worn-out-by-the-DMN-beyond-cliche word) in this election.

Benedict's biggest challenge will now be to find a new nemesis to replace Rumsfeld.

12:48 PM  
Blogger Bubba said...

I think it would be amusing if Rod finds Rummy's replacement even less palatable: he has a tendency not to give thought to consequences other than the first, immediate consequence.

One long-term consequence of this election might be that it forces Rod to put up or shut up on his drift to the Dems.

(Of course, Kathleen, a Democrat Congress is more socially conservative. Opposition to our presence in Iraq is the new definition of being pro-life. Q.E.D.)

Out of power, Rod's paleocon friends in the crunchy country and his leftist friends in the cosmopolitan media made common cause. Though I believe that paleoconservatism is on some issues further to the left than mainstream conservatism (distrust of the free market, anyone?) it's not going to take long for this temporary alliance to disolve.

As the chasm widens, Rod's going to have to decide which side he's landing on. Will he be another Wendell Barry or Caleb Stegall? (Asks most people: who?) Or will he become a full-fledge ex-conservative liberal Democrat?

Guess which choice offers a better book deal and better publicity, and you'll have your answer. Draw conclusions from how he's treated older former friends from Catholicism and conservatism, and you'll have your answer.

There's probably room here for a full-length blog entry -- possibly a final projection for what Rod will do next -- but I believe others here are right that he's laying the groundwork for just such a jump: he's said that the biggest obstacles to joining the Dems are social issues, and he's already villified most social conservatives as bigots for holding the exact same position he does on redefining marriage, and he's recently redefined what it means to be pro-life in order to make a Democratic candidate more attractive. He may still hold on to his ideas about marriage, but since those ideas will diminish and then disappear as a deciding factor in which candidate he supports, what will it matter?

The facade of being a conservative (one who claims to be one of the few true, honorable conservatives) will drop more quickly than it otherwise would have: an unintended consequence of Dreher getting exactly what he wanted.

And am I the only one who finds it funny that both Rod and Stooksbury are invoking children's books and movies to express their truly childish glee?

1:25 PM  
Blogger kathleen said...

i love the thinking that "america's foreign policy is creating generations upon generations of terrorists", which thinking couples itself with "rumsfeld is the reason we are losing iraq -- he's gone! calloo callay! happy days are here again!" what is the thinking, exactly? that we are now going to withdraw from iraq and the terrorists will leave us alone? OR that we are now going to kick ass in iraq, while simultaneously pacifying the terrorists who resent our being there? and that one man, rumsfeld, was the reason there were difficulties in the first place? i wish.

1:38 PM  
Blogger Bubba said...

Thanks for pointing out the Sowell column, Pauli: glad to see he's getting regular play at NRO.

I think he's right that the extremists will be running the Dem leadership in Congress. Podhoretz pointed out that trying to appease Congressional Democrats was a mistake for Nixon and that it's a fool's errand. (Considering how some of Reagan and George HW Bush's biggest mistakes was on going along with Dems on taxes and spending, I'm inclined to agree.)

Guess which true and honorable conservative missed this point entirely?

I haven't forgotten the things said the past few weeks.

- The redefinition of "pro-life".

- Rod jumping on the Vanity Fair hit piece without (so far as I noticed) any recognition of the quoted neocons' response.

- Most damningly, Rod's repeated assertion that he believes the Saddam verdict's timing was coordinated by Republicans.

Even for him, the man displayed a staggering lack of character. None of us should forget this; petty as it may appear, we perhaps should occasionally remind others, too.

1:48 PM  
Blogger kathleen said...

allow me to compare and contrast conservative Benedict Rod Ray with conservative Limbaugh:

"I'm not going to eat my own, and I'm not going to throw my own overboard, particularly in a campaign, and particularly when the country is at war -- and I'm not going to do it for selfish reasons, and I'm not going to do it to stand out, and I'm not going to do it to be different. I'm not going to do it to draw attention from our enemies. I'm not going to do anything I do so that the Drive-By Media will like me or think that, 'Ooooh, Limbaugh has changed! Ooooh, Limbaugh is coming around!' That's not my thinking. My thinking is: the left doesn't deserve to win. My thinking is: the country is imperiled with liberal victory. We may not have the best people on our side, but they're better than what we have on the left. "

-- so what is the opposite of this thinking? conservatives who would rather "stand out" and "be liked" than protect the country from further peril by facilitating a democrat win.

1:50 PM  
Blogger Bubba said...

When I said that Rod repeated the slander re: Saddam, I should have linked to this, from the comments thread.

1:54 PM  
Blogger pikkumatti said...

bubba, the cool thing about your comment citing Wendell Barry and Caleb Stegall is that you can then conclude that those who disagree with you are either unfamilar with or hostile to the legacy of the agrarianism, localism and traditionalism of the Agrarians (up through and including Weaver and Bradford) and the New Conservatives, and thus find your comment alien.

Me, I'm probably on the wrong side of Voegelin's divide. Whatever side that is.

1:55 PM  
Blogger Diane said...

Meanwhile, I'm ticked at Rod's racist anti-Hispanic take on Why Dem Judges Gained in Dallas. Ack.

1:57 PM  
Blogger Diane said...

P.S. to above: I guess all those smelly Mexicans just aren't Crunchy enough, eh?:p

1:58 PM  
Blogger pikkumatti said...

Rod is an idiot about how Hispanics vote or what they think. He is the equivalent of Mrs. Heinz-Kerry, when she went to South Texas in '04, stood in front of a crowd of fourth-generation-plus citizens (who happened to be Latino), and said "I'm an immigrant, too."

For example, I have a pretty good sense of how ethnic Hispanic American citizens (my wife is one) view illegal immigration. And it is not the conventional wisdom.

2:07 PM  
Blogger Cubeland Mystic said...


Rod is a pendejo.

2:16 PM  
Blogger Cubeland Mystic said...

Thanks for quoting me in your post. Not my best sentence though. You can remove two of the three usages of “Now” in the quote. You guys should consider turning this blog into a regular magazine. You can start by confronting hyphenated conservatism. You should expand beyond your current subject.

I manage to hold to my simple values without stupidly enabling Stalinists to take control of our country. Perhaps it is the result of working in big business that I see that rolling back the clock 300 years is not the answer to modern problems. It is our forefather’s intentions that interests me, not how they lived on the farm. There is something so et tu Brute about this loss.

Today is a good day to criticize Republicans because the election is over, not yesterday. Now we have Senator Leahy.

There is enough style and talent here that you all should seriously consider broadening your scope.

2:59 PM  
Blogger Diane said...

Well, cube, I count myself out of the "style and talent" thing, but I definitely agree with you that we should broaden our scope. We are becoming a little clutch of like-minded folks who enjoy each other's cyber-company and enjoy a good joke, and I would hate to see that go away. :)

4:40 PM  
Blogger Bubba said...

By the way, per Rod's idiotic comments about Rush, I vented a bit over there, but not enough.

Rod Dreher's foolishless knows no bounds, and he simply doesn't ever know when to shut the hell up.

5:09 PM  
Blogger Pauli said...

I have to feel kind of bad for Rush when I imagine him hurrying after his show to the CrunchyCon blog to see if Rod mentioned him so he can maybe get a bunch of new listeners. Then he sees how thoroughly Rod refutes and trashes what he says. It must be really depressing to him. After all, he's only human. Like Dan Rather.

6:05 PM  
Blogger Bubba said...


7:18 PM  
Blogger SiliconValleySteve said...


All Rod has is the ability to outrage conservatives. He isn't a serious person. This is just entertainment schtick. Don't go over there and feed the beast. Starve it and it will die.

9:53 AM  
Blogger kathleen said...

But SVS, Benedict is a great example of an attitude that is rampant today: forget the truth, forget principle, forget intellectual consistency or coherence forget maturity and accountability -- all that matters is *I LOOK SMART*, *I LOOK SPECIAL*, *PEOPLE LIKE ME*, *PEOPLE APPROVE OF ME*. you could also say it's a failure of Our Working Boy and many in his generation to grow up. I'm not so interested in Benedict per se (God knows, my eyes usually glaze over by sentence 2 of any given post of his), just the fact that he is a great example of this attitude, which screams to be taken down.

10:49 AM  
Blogger SiliconValleySteve said...


I agree with taking him down. No problem there and it isn't just a matter of his shallow politics for me. He is a dispicable person. He built a career (such as it is) on being a Catholic conservative. Now he spends most of his time trashing both.

His argument that he isn't a clone and his "oh-so-clever" Romanian plumbers brigade quip to suggest that those who disagree respectfully with other conservatives are totalitarians is just childish. It is moments like this that reveal character and he doesn't have any.

My disagreement with posting on his blog is that I don't think there is a sincere bone in his body and that all of his posturing is just his attempt to get postings. Otherwise, he just disappears. I think arguing with him just keeps his pathetic little parade alive. It needs to die.

My experience in life is that when a person is untrustworthy, it is across the board. So my prediction for Ray's next transformation is that he realizes he's gay and falls in love with a man. He will leave Julie to be authentic to his true nature and arrange joint parenting.

11:28 AM  
Blogger kathleen said...

gee SVS, it's not like he posted about ted haggard more than 7 or 8 times.

12:37 PM  
Blogger Cubeland Mystic said...


Don't you think that is a little hard? You are a little older than he us, he is still kind of young. Late 30's is when you put your house in order and sign the check. It's just immaturity.

What you should do is look at hyphenated conservatism, and start to redirect people's thinking using your humor and skillful argumentation. Try to promote this blog and get your readership up.

Also, there is room in conservatism for ideas that promote simple lifestyles. The ideas that I'd promote are thrift, hard work, saving, faith, etc. Those don't really work in big business, but at the domestic level they still do. It could still be satirical but not as a reaction to CCism.

12:38 PM  
Blogger Art Deco said...

The man has some disagreeable habits of mind manifest in certain public postures (e.g. an insistence that errors of judgment on his part are a consequence of others misleading him - accusations, accusations). Saying he is despicable globally is rather de trop. He makes an unconvincing James Bond villain.

I do not imagine Mrs. Dreher is terribly pleased with dyspeptic speculation about the future trajectory of their marriage (and she is an innocent party).

3:16 PM  
Blogger SiliconValleySteve said...


It's a bit of a joke but the genesis behind it is that in the time I've followed Rod, (which is a pretty short period of time) he has turned against or at least "evolved" on almost every belief that he has held except same-sex marriage. He is certainly bending on abortion these days. Although this line of reasoning is anything but conclusive, it is difficult to rule out a gay marriage in his future. It certainly would fit the pattern.

3:40 PM  
Blogger Bubba said...

Steve, as WFB pointed out during the Gore Vidal brouhaha, it was then and remains now that certain comments about sexual identity are rhetorical third rails. I see your point, but there are probably better ways to put it.

Anyway, Rod's latest post is amusing, for what it's worth.

There are hints of radical paleoconservatism, with the rejection of both the Enlightenment and the goal of spreading freedom worldwide.

(The latter trait of the paleos ignores recent history, such as the fact that India and Japan could be considered in many respects Western nations, and if it posits that other cultures pose truly insurmountable obstacles, it ultimately leads to a bigotry that is, in practice, hardly distinguishable from racism. The leading neocons might have been too optimistic in the speed at which Western values can be spread, but there ought to be no doubt that it can be done and that it would be good for this country if it was done successfully.)

(The former? I don't believe any modern Westerner that believes his wife should have a vote truly detests the Enlightenment.)

But beside the hints of paleoconservatism there's the liberalism: conservatives are deceptive or delusional because Jonathan Chait says so!

(There's also the continued baiting of Dittoheads. Now that it's been brought up, I believe Rod has taken a perverse delight simply in tweaking people, to Hell with having principles and enunciating them clearly.)

I think I'm right: Rod's trying to straddle between leftists and paleocons because both utterly loathe mainstream conservatives. At some point, the charade will become untenable.

Rod referenced Jonah; I will do so, too, pointing out this Corner post about leftist wishful thinking following this election.

Consider Rod's hubris post, about how conservatism is now an open question. Somebody should tell me what part (if any) of Jonah's analysis doesn't apply to Rod's wishful thinking.

3:50 PM  
Blogger Bubba said...

And is it wrong to suspect that Rod thinks Iraq's a disaster because he wants it to be a disaster?

Success in Iraq is obviously anathema to both paleos and leftists, so is there a reason to believe his negative appraisal of the situation has ever been rational?

For that matter, his repeated sole reason for supporting Iraq was a chidlish sentiment of making somebody pay: was his thinking on Iraq ever anything but muddy?

3:52 PM  
Blogger Bubba said...

One other quick thing about, not those who simply value tradition, but those truly reactionary paleoconservatives. If they actively desire a failure in American foreign policy because such failure would vindicate their ideology, it can't be said that they're truly patriotic. They're patriotic defenders of an America that doesn't exist and probably never did, not the one here and now. They'll betray the actual America (and therefore actual Americans) in order to bring about their "real" America.

3:59 PM  
Blogger Cubeland Mystic said...

"If they actively desire a failure in American foreign policy because such failure would vindicate their ideology, it can't be said that they're truly patriotic."

How long are you going to abide the dems and their foolishness, before the dems can make the same assertion about you?

I don't disagree with your assertion, but your point is interesting. There is a limit when politicians go too far. There is something to be said about sacred ground. Perhaps your attitude about these things is influenced by the amount of your own DNA beneath your feet as you walk through a graveyard.

Admittedly I don't have a lot of DNA in the game here. But there others who do. I can understand the reticence about throwing it all away on something you don‘t understand.

This is where we probably part company. Someone directing my life's choice horizon from a Washington or some corporate boardroom is more than a little distasteful. These decisions get into some visceral areas like taxes, retirement, healthcare, education. At some point the elite thinking is so different than your own you say "no thank you, I'll pass on this little piece of idiocy."

You ask yourself why are we really fighting? Is it because short sighted managers have leveraged their companies to the teeth and if the economy slowed that it would mean universal disaster. So the unvoted deeds of a few impact us all. Enough to send your sacred soil (a child) to die in an avoidable economic war. Especially if conservative values were applied to the problems in the first place. Those people who call for war better be pretty darn aligned with my values before I am going to buy into it. Plus, I am old enough now to see meat axe logic applied to plenty of subtle situations that require a more nuanced response. In other words, I would say to the leadership, "go think this through, you can probably do better."

4:57 PM  
Blogger Bubba said...

Mystic, for once I must say I haven't a clue what you're talking about.

5:55 PM  
Blogger Bubba said...

Not that it matters to Rod, but Rush explained himself today.

6:11 PM  
Blogger Cubeland Mystic said...

Sorry that's my hidden inner Larison comming out. :-)

"How long are you going to abide the dems and their foolishness, before the dems can make the same assertion about you?"

In other words, would you follow the dems into war if you did not agree with it, and when they called you a traitor for your dissent how would you react?

6:33 PM  
Blogger Bubba said...

It's a simple calculation for me: do History Channel documentaries on WWII make me damn proud to be an American, or do they make me grimace because FDR was lionized as a result? Do documentaries on Vietnam make me glad that the war has made the Dems political mincemeat on the subject of foreign policy for (going on) thirty years, or do they make me weap that our national prestige was needlessly tarnished?

Even if another Clinton's in the White House (which -- shudder -- may well happen), I'll pull for an American victory at war despite the liar in the Oval Office. I will not desire an American defeat because of her.

Patriotic Americans can disagree on whether a war is just or wise, but once we're in it, patriotic Americans pull for the team. We play, we play to win, neither party affiliation nor idealogy gets in the way of that.

Would I support a war if it was a hawkish leftist like Lieberman or even a cynic like Hillary were at the helm? Fucking right I would.

7:45 PM  
Blogger Pauli said...

Hey, JC weighs in against Dreher's latest Catholic attack. Classic Carp.

8:41 PM  
Blogger Cubeland Mystic said...

Just for the sake of clarity my question was not my opinion in the form of a question. It was really a question.

"I will not desire an American defeat because of her."

I could not agree with you more here. I suspect that the Iraq war is more stategic than anything. If we stay the course or leave it sends a message to our enemies that we will still fight, despite the cost of cheap goods turned out by slave labor ;-) For us to run away now, is to horrible to ponder.

"Patriotic Americans can disagree on whether a war is just or wise, but once we're in it, patriotic Americans pull for the team."

This is my view also, and the problem for me. There is one "but monkey" though. The lead up to the war. I have trouble identifiying with pro-death types as a fellow citizens. I can't quite get on the same page with them. I cannot get past it. It's hard for me to see them as part of the team. In the build up phase, it would be hard for me to support their war. But once the war started, I could fight, it would be reluctant. I could see my kids go to protect the Bubbas of the world. But to make the commitment for a the leftists who hate our country and us, my faith is not that strong.

For you guys, Rod, most of the others on the right with whom you disagree I could go to war for you all. But the hardcore left, I don't know. I really struggle with it as I get older. I am not sure we are on the same team. That's why I ask the question.

10:22 PM  
Blogger Bubba said...

Predictably, Iran's Supreme Leader is calling Tuesday's results "an obvious victory for the Iranian nation."

I'm inclined to agree; I wonder if Our Working Boy will have anything to say.

Carpenter's post was well worth reading; thanks for the heads-up, Pauli.

9:26 AM  
Blogger Bubba said...

In addition to the Supreme Leader, al Queda's Iraq division reportedly likes the results, too.

And so far as I know, Dreher couldn't give a shit.

9:52 AM  
Blogger Bubba said...

Oh, for crying out loud, Dreher's making 2008 predictions. John Edwards as Obama's running mate because Edwards "would add gravitas to the ticket."

If I wrote something like that in earnest, I'd be ashamed that it would lead people to discover my severe mental disabilities.

It's Tourette's. It has to be Tourette's that's making Rod say the first thing that comes to mind, even if it's the most ridiculous thing imaginable.

9:57 AM  
Blogger Cubeland Mystic said...

If you are inclined to agree with the Iranian supreme leader, then who gave the Iranians this victory?

10:04 AM  
Blogger Bubba said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

10:42 AM  
Blogger Cubeland Mystic said...

Pauli, Bubba, SVS

What is a Nazgul?

1:03 PM  
Blogger Diane said...

Pauvre moi. I've just had my knuckles rapped again by my friend Mark Shea...over at the RodBlog, natch.

Will my sensitive soul recuperate in time to watch Columbo tonight?

Stay tuned... :)


2:02 PM  
Blogger Diane said...

Oy, Rod's on the Obama Bandwagon now. I guess any pro-life allegiance is completely out the window now. Oh, I forgot. He's still pro-life--just pro his own kids' lives. Language is infinitely malleable in Rod's Humpty-Dumpty world. And so are loyalties....

7:45 AM  
Blogger Andy Nowicki said...

Cubeland, I think I know exactly what you are saying (even if you weren't exactly clear the first time around). Western culture is, increasingly, indistinguishable from the Culture of Death. Given this fact, why should we root for American victory abroad? Do we really want the world made over in our own, increasingly dubious, image?

By the way, before anyone clubs me too hard for what I've said here, not rooting for American victory isn't the same thing as relishing the idea of American GIs getting maimed or killed. It just means seeing the big picture for what it is.

2:48 PM  
Blogger Diane said...

Andy, I won't club you. :) I feel much the same ambivalence. Since the elections, I have an even greater sense that the darkness is descending. Hope that doesn't sound too apocalyptic. Maybe it's just a passing mood, but I dunno. Things look bleak. I have to keep reminding myself that Our God wins in the end. I've been praying the "Thy Kingdome come" part of the Our Father with renewed urgency....

2:55 PM  
Blogger Cubeland Mystic said...

"Western culture is, increasingly, indistinguishable from the Culture of Death. Given this fact, why should we root for American victory abroad? "

I was trying to look at it from the paleo-con perspective. Not that I understand what one is really, but I am trying.

The reason we should root for an American victory abroad is because one is never sure of the strategic motivations of the war. It may have more to do with the Chineese sub following the aircraft carrier than stomping out the fanatics.

The broader point that I was trying to make is at what point has the leadership violated the intention of the Constitution, and what is the proper reaction to it.

3:46 AM  
Blogger Andy Nowicki said...

Diane, the difference between us is that I felt the same way prior to the election, and I would have felt that way if the election had turned out differently. I don't think American/Western culture is still a Culture of Death today even when the GOP is in charge, although the GOP is admittedly more likely to appoint judges less enamored of "Roe" than the Deathocrats are.

5:02 AM  
Blogger Diane said...

Well, Andy, I confess I felt that way prior to the election, too. I just feel even more that way now. :(

5:31 AM  
Blogger Andy Nowicki said...

my post should read "American culture is still a culture of death"-- the "not" is an imposter. Sorry for the confusion.

8:33 AM  
Blogger Pauli said...

Diane, when you wrote "thy Kingdome come" were you thinking of the Seattle Kingdome?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

9:07 AM  
Blogger Bubba said...

Andy, if Western values are not preeminent on the world stage, some other set of values will be. I won't deny that we are very, very far from perfect, but it's hard for me to take seriously someone who wants our influence to diminish because ours is a culture of death when the current alternatives are China and jihad.

10:20 AM  
Blogger Bubba said...

By the way, Rod's rehashing the schtick about how western civilization is doomed to collapse and that we "have a duty to fall back into the kinds of communities and institutions that will help us withstand the dark ages to come with our faith and our morals intact." Granting the premise that civilization is fragile -- a belief that's held by both Newt Gingrich and Mark Steyn -- my position is that we ought to fight to prevent such a catastrophe. I could see how someone could disagree and think it's too late to do anything but batten down the hatches of your own family's dinghy, but I can't see how that person would care quite so much about elections, and I imagine he wouldn't be quite so giddy about an election's outcome either way.

Assuming the real Rod has a consistent character (I know, I know), either the civilizational pessimism of the author of Crunchy Cons is a sham, or it's the political interest of the blogger that's the fraud.

Anyway, JB Doubtless may be right that this is the most damning thing Rod Dreher has ever written:

"...on policy matters, 1984 voters were actually much more in agreement with Mondale ... but voted overwhelmingly for Reagan. I know this well, because I was co-founder of Louisiana School Students for Mondale, and had to research all this. It drove my 17-year-old indignant self up the wall. We comforted ourselves by saying that either a) Reagan cast a spell on voters that fooled them into voting against their interests, or b) voters were a bunch of morons." [emphasis mine]

Not content with working with a campaign for a presidential candidate while as a high-school student, Dreher co-founded at the state level an organization whose primary purpose was to support the election of Walter Mondale.

Good Lord.

11:59 AM  
Blogger kathleen said...

aren't (a) (cast a spell) and b (voters are morons) the same thing? in other words, people do what they do because they are morons. how very unlike Our Working Boy's premise in "crunchy cons".

12:14 PM  
Blogger pikkumatti said...

I'm actually starting to think that Rod Dreher has some sort of psychological aversion to responsibility. He seems to be repeatedly choosing things that will minimize his association with groups that are actually able to do something.

He is a journalist.

He cheered for an election that results in a split government.

He is a "conservative" that hoped his "side" would lose an election(!?!). Not because the country would be better off, but because he believes they deserved to.

He left the Roman Catholic Church for Orthodoxy, specifically a small parish.

His kids go to a small school.

Crunchy-ness is all about falling back into the kinds of communities and institutions that will help us withstand the dark ages to come with our faith and our morals intact as bubba quotes. And so, Crunchy-ness avoids responsibility for the larger culture.

He was a founder of a pro-Mondale group -- not because Mondale was right and Reagan was wrong, concluding that Reagan mesmerized stupid people.

He will become the founder of Conservatives For Obama.

He says REM is better than U2 because only the cool kids in college understood the mystery and allure. (No, wait, that just makes him a snob.)

12:21 PM  
Blogger Pauli said...

OK - finally read that painful U2/REM post. What can I say? It's just really incomplete. What about the Smiths? What about Softcell? What about Echo and the Bunnymen? What about the Devo, Ocean Blue, Cocteau Twins, Housemartins, New Order, Gene Loves Jezebel, Ultravox, Siouxie, Cure, PIL, Love and Rockets, Blow Monkeys, Fugazi, Alarm, the Church, Pixies, Clan of Xymox, J&M Chain........


1:33 PM  
Blogger Andy Nowicki said...

I firmly believe that Duran Duran in the 80s was better than both REM and U2. How's that for a contra-crunchy, anti-snob stance, comrades?

1:48 PM  
Blogger Andy Nowicki said...

And Bubba, it doesn't hurt my feelings if it's hard for you to take me seriously. I'm just right, that's all. (I'd write a sideways winking smiley face here, but I'm too much of a snob to do something so pedestrian-- although not enough of a snob to enthusiastically declare my alleigance to Duran Duran...)

1:51 PM  
Blogger Andy Nowicki said...

above post should read: "not enough of a snob TO BE ASHAMED to declare my allegiance to Duran Duran..."

1:53 PM  
Blogger pikkumatti said...

Only way for this old fart to check which band was best in the '80s is to see what I've got in my iPod from that decade, in this the Year of Our Lord 2006.

97 songs. Here's the scorecard:

Van Halen : 2
U2 : 70
Tom Petty : 2
Roy Orbison : 2
Queen : 3
Lyle Lovett : 2
Mariachi songs : 5
Joni Mitchell jazzy songs that I forgot I had and will now delete : 11
R.E.M. : 0
Duran Duran : 0

I think that adds up. Looks like U2 wins. R.E.M and Duran are a close eighth.

2:05 PM  
Blogger Cubeland Mystic said...

THE POLICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I had to search the page to see if I missed someone's mention.

2:47 PM  
Blogger Bubba said...

Looking at my comment, I see it was a bit snarky, Andy; sorry 'bout that. I still believe, however, that the likeliest alternatives to American cultural and political supremacy are far worse to issues concerning the dignity and protection of human life.

2:50 PM  
Blogger Cubeland Mystic said...


You got five Mariachi songs on your Ipod? Are you serious?

2:59 PM  
Blogger pikkumatti said...

Claro. Me encanta la música de mariachi.

3:07 PM  
Blogger Cubeland Mystic said...


I got some beer. You got the mariachi music?

I'll make Mrs. Mystic barbeque some tripas.

3:28 PM  
Blogger kathleen said...

I liked REM before anyone ever heard of them. in fact, i liked REM before they were formed. No, I liked them even when they weren't yet born. I liked them when they were a mere clump of stem cells and hadn't yet started breathing, let alone speaking and singing and performing. do i get a nobel prize for that?

3:30 PM  
Blogger Andy Nowicki said...

No problem Bubba. After all, as poet LeBon once wrote, "the reflex is an only child who's waiting by the pond." Meaning, we all make snarky remarks on reflex sometimes.

3:41 PM  
Blogger kathleen said...

pikku, i have the joni mitchell jazzy songs on my ipod too. i too never listen to them. it's time to clean ipod.

perhaps this should be a regular feature, what contras have on their ipods. our playlists will no doubt be greeted with snorts of derision from the likes of larison and stooksboy. which is probably a good reason to post them. we owe it to our audience.

4:03 PM  
Blogger Bubba said...

Updated the blog entry, FYI.

3:36 PM  
Blogger Cubeland Mystic said...

"Was that price even considered by conservatives who indulged their anger instead of weighing alternatives?"

That really says it all.

6:06 PM  
Blogger Pauli said...

If the USCCB disapproves of Sowell's remarks maybe Rod will cover it. Otherwise, fat chance.

If you want to "send a message" to your congress-person or the President or anyone in government there are excellent ways to do this without voting in worse actors. For example, what about writing a letter? I've done that several times. You can send emails, but most agree that a signed letter is much more effective.

You can phone someone's office as well. We did that to ol' King George Voinovich when the rumor got around that he was going to take a pass on endorsing the marriage defense amendment in 2004. An email went around all day with his phone number on it. By the time I called the number, the staffer was answering the phone by yelling "HE'S SUPPORTING THE AMENDMENT, OK??" Senator George obviously got the message.

But how does not voting for someone send any discernable coherent message at all? I'm sure the high-school prom queen was broken up that you didn't have the nerve to ask her out and she probably guessed that this non-action of yours was due to your disapproval of her views on illegal immigration. I suppose an incoherent message delivered at the polls would be a good match for the incoherent blog ramblings of many of these tantrum-throwing troglodytes.

Sowell rocks, thanks.

8:00 PM  
Blogger pikkumatti said...

Spot on update, bubba.

It is sad to see conservatives acting like liberals, looking at everything through a cynical zero-sum political lens. "For the Good of the Country" is a phrase that has become foreign to such actors -- instead, it became all about one's own personal judgment, as if the election was for selecting the Best Picture Oscar.

As best I recall, the disillusioned-conservative "movement" (for lack of a better term) started before the '06 election with at least a little integrity. This little bit of integrity was along the lines of: if the GOP loses in '06, it can rebuild as a result and true conservatism will come back stronger and better than ever. At least this approach had a connection with The Good of the Country.

But, sadly, this seemed to morph into they deserve to lose. How many posts on CrunchyBlogProper included a RodDreher deserve to lose reference in the last month? Countless. This attitude is, as bubba aptly points out, simply self-indulgent. Those with this attitude abdicated the role of citizens voting for the good of the country, in favor of the role of self-appointed judges of the Worthy and the Unworthy. And their opinions became irrelevant.

6:28 AM  
Blogger kathleen said...

do we have a count as of wednesday AM, with yet *another* new post about bishops and gays, what percentage of benedict's posts are about the catholic church and/or gays? (and how many of those end with a question mark?)

oh sorry, he's not the one with obsessions, we are.

8:46 AM  
Blogger Pauli said...

Kathleen, I was just thinking about how damning such a count could be. You're the expert on stuff like that, so I think you just nominated yourself.

8:55 AM  
Blogger kathleen said...

yeah, but last time i did that jennifer said i was obsessed and i sulked about that for a good .5 seconds.

9:13 AM  
Blogger Diane said...


Yep, Rod just can't stop bashin' the bishops.

Wait! Is he bashin' his own (EO) bishops--e.g., the ones who pussyfoot around the abortion issue because they don't wanna offend pro-choice bigwig donors?

Nahhhhhhh. Kiddez-vous moi?

Catholic bishops, natch. Every time they blow their noses, Rod has to comment on it critically.

But he's not an obsessed, bitter, angry ex-Catholic or anything....


P.S. That tmatt guy slays me.

9:28 AM  
Blogger Pauli said...

I knew Mark Shea would have a couple of posts up today defending himself from the Rod defenders. It would be great to hear what Shea says off the record about Captain Crunch, but they agree on so many of the "Buck Fush" items that he stands down.

11:18 AM  
Blogger kathleen said...

oh yeah, the mark shea blog. that brings back fond memories of what one might call sheaboarding.... anyway, what i don't understand about amy's comments -- "it would have been 'good form' for benedict not to talk about the bishops, but what's the big deal?" -- is why "good form" is treated as so marginal a consideration. "good form" is a sign of maturity, of healthy functional adulthood. because it is sadly lacking almost everywhere doesn't mean such lack should be tolerated in decorous silence.

11:45 AM  
Blogger Bubba said...


"Meanwhile, conservatives like me banked on the Pelosi Democrats making foolish moves that would remind voters why they don't trust the Democrats with power. Happily from a partisan perspective, but unhappily from a good-government one, that seems to be happening already."

Translation: "It's not a bug, it's a feature."

This statement strikes me as revisionism since I don't recall Rod's arguing for this before the election: it was primarily (perhaps solely) about how mad he was about the Republicans who deserve to go down in defeat, and about how he was salivating to see the Bush Administration roasted on live television for Iraq. The jujitsu of "giving them power will expose them and thus make us stronger" wasn't part of the equation.

Now it is? Maybe Rod's reading this blog.

(Hi, Rod!)

Either way, he now wants to argue that he's counted the cost and that the cost is worth it, that the cost that he admits is bad from a "good-government" perspective is actually a benefit.

What nonsense.

We're at war, when government malfeasance is the most costly. Sowell gave just one damning example, that the only judges who are confirmed are those who will grant terrorists the full spectrum of legal rights and protections. I would add to that the issues of border security, intelligence gathering, the test of American will in Iraq, and the threat of nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea.

Yeah, this is a great $#@%ing time for us to desire that the Democrats have political power and fail at wielding it wisely.

11:59 AM  
Blogger pikkumatti said...

bubba merely points out how shallow is the analysis by Crunchy Leader.

Contrast Rod with the thinking of my man Newt , who wrote this to me today:

From a House Republican standpoint, the center of gravity should be the 54 Blue Dog Democrats. If we and the Blue Dogs can find a handful of key things to work on together, we can almost certainly create a majority on the floor just as the Reagan Republicans and conservative Democrats did in 1981. Bipartisanship can be conservative and back bench rather than liberal and establishment leadership defined. What did the Blue Dogs promise to get elected? What was the nature of their coalition back home? They give us the best opportunity to create grassroots efforts to pass solid legislation. Remember, the liberals will find it very hard to write a budget acceptable to the grassroots that elected the Blue Dogs. We have real opportunities if we are creative.

In other words, one writer tells us how the GOP can and should govern from the minority. The other is just watching the headlines on AOL and giving a play-by-play on which team is ahead. I'll let you figure out who is which.

My days are happier without reading CrunchyBlog.

1:10 PM  
Blogger Pauli said...

Kat: "...what i don't understand about amy's comments -- "it would have been 'good form' for benedict not to talk about the bishops, but what's the big deal?" -- is why "good form" is treated as so marginal a consideration...."

Amy provides a good example here of how some members of the club a given a pass. Rod will probably always be a popular guy with Mark and Amy and my guess is that he'll continue to push the envelope on the Catholic thing. The main reason Rod doesn't attempt to uncover the skeletons in Greek Orthodoxy is because the copy would seem so irrelevant. After all, it's not being talked about on NPR.

1:21 PM  
Blogger Diane said...

Check out Mark Shea's blog for the latest. Heavy sigh.

2:44 PM  
Blogger Bubba said...

BTW, y'all missed another big band of the 80's:

Talking Heads.

3:38 PM  
Blogger pikkumatti said...

I was unfamiliar with this Mark Shea character until your mentions of him today. Now I'm sorry I clicked over to check him out. Yikes. Unless I'm missing something, he's way meaner to us than we are to Rod. Ain't no haters over here, best I can tell.

Besides, Rod is a professional opinion monger by way of his day job(s). There's heat in that there kitchen. If one wants to be snobby or less than thorough as one trots out opinions for a living, then one ought to be prepared for criticism.

And I'll throw out a wreath for Rod because he himself doesn't whine about being criticized, as best I can tell. So see, Mark Shea, we're not so bad over here. [At least until the real meanies dump this comment because I said something nice about Rod.]

4:13 PM  
Blogger Bubba said...

Here's the comment I'm in the process of posting, but it has too many links...


In just the last couple weeks, Rod Dreher suggested that the reason we're still in Iraq (a "meat grinder") is "to preserve this president's self-image", suggested that the United States government is not worthy of being defended because of who is in the White House, cynically redefined (in the same post) what he thinks it means to be "pro-life" in order to support an abortionist who opposes Bush on Iraq, announced that he cannot be convinced that the Saddam verdict wasn't timed to help Republicans, and asserted the conservatives like him made the utterly irresponsible wartime wager of "bank[ing] on the Pelosi Democrats making foolish moves that would remind voters why they don't trust the Democrats with power."

Vanity Fair has a press release about neocons opposing Bush? Rod's all over it. Those very same neocons react negatively, accusing the magazine of lying to them and distorting their views, and Rod's utterly silent.

Rush Limbaugh makes a comment that could be misconstrued as an admission that he sacrificed his principles, and Rod says he turned himself into "a GOP shill." Rush explains himself the very next day, and Rod couldn't be bothered.

On top of all that, Rod utters complete nonsense, saying that John Edwards would add gravitas to a Dem presidential ticket in 2008. John Edwards. Gravitas.

How far back does one have to go to find comments such as these? TWO WEEKS.

Rod Dreher has established a recent record of asininity that is staggering even for him, but you want to say that our criticisms are Orwellian and that they reduce to nothing more than, "[H]e is no longer Of the Body. He is an Outsider."

Are you utterly ignorant of the comments I'm highlighting, or do you honestly think that they are uttered from a wellspring of intelligence and principle?

If our criticisms of Rod's blatherings are so utterly without merit, you must surely be willing to defend Rod's statements and behavior as reasonable even if you don't agree with them entirely.

The fact is, if Rod didn't say such ridiculous and often reprehensible things on such a regular basis, there would be no need for our blog. But just as NRO has had a column devoted to debunking Paul Krugman, a few of us feel compelled to document the silliness and satirize a man who -- so far as I can tell -- takes himself more seriously than he should and takes the arguments he makes far less seriously than he should.

We do this out of love for him? No, but it's not out of hatred, either. Most of us (myself included) stumbled across his writings hoping for something far more substantive than we found.

Instead, Rod wrote at length criticizing mainstream conservatives as godless materialists, but he has yet to provide a truly substantive response to any criticism of his book. He's acted as if we are all to be judged by our choices in the marketplace, but he's shown himself to be quite hypocritical about his own affluence. He's been vicious and graceless in attacking those institutions that helped him reach where he is now, namely conservatism and the Catholic church, even going so far as accusing rank-and-file Republicans of being homophobic for agreeing with him on the issue of marriage and giving faithful Catholics a slap across the face on the way out, writing that they are not "where most people want to know more about the faith, and how we can conform our lives to it, rather than wanting to run away from it or hide it so nobody has to be offended."

(That was nice of him, wasn't it, Mark?)

He asserts (but does not prove) that he can see things better by being on the outside, but he's utterly blind about the clericalism he displays in defending the mainstream media of which he is a part. And he's shown himself to be just as capable at name-calling as anybody who's disagreed with him.

Point this all out, and he'll ignore you or ridicule you, and then you'll get a gem like this:

"Good grief, this is just a blog where I give my opinions. They're worth what you pay for them. Quit taking all this so dang seriously."

More than once, Rod has deflected criticism by essentially saying he's just a writer. Rather than take his profession seriously enough to defend what he writes, he uses his profession as a license to say anything without the slightest bit of accountability.

"A rather decent man"? I hope so, and I've tried very to think so, but in his writing he's something else entirely.

4:28 PM  
Blogger kathleen said...

It's pretty funny Mark Shea keeps baiting me on his blog while i'm still banned from commenting on it. that's class! you'd think he would have washed his hands of the likes of me, what with me being a "Witch Queen" and all, but he has let slip the fact that keeps reading us.

hey Mark Shea! back for another daily dose of damnation?! you just can't stop yourself, can you?

i keep thinking i'm done with dreher and his friends, but astonishingly they keep coming back and asking for more. it's like shooting fish a in a freaking barrel.

4:41 PM  
Blogger Bubba said...

And, briefly, from another comment, the most succinct explanation for my personal aggrevation at Rod Dreher.

1) With the release of his book, Rod started off on the wrong foot with me by attacking conservatives while asserting to be a conservative, going so far as to presume to be one of the few honorable conservatives.

2) When mainstream conservatives responded with thoughtful, substantive criticism, he did a most dishonorable thing by refusing to address those criticisms substantively.

3) Since then, the expectation that Rod would meet the standards of professional writing has not been met. Instead he has shown himself to be surprisingly unprofessional.

4) Rod is not merely consistently unprofessional, he is increasingly unprofessional, the most recent examples being the conspiracy-mongering about the Saddam verdict and the frivolous temper tantrum over the midterm elections, a sulking that betrays a man who is utterly unserious about the threats to national security we face today.

If/when he hits bottom, my interest in mocking him will almost certainly wane.

(Until then, I should probably bookmark this comment.)

4:51 PM  
Blogger kathleen said...

back to the more interesting subject of 80's bands and what's on my ipod:

in 50 years, people will still be listening to Journey. Steve Perry has the voice of a god. deal with it.

4:54 PM  
Blogger kathleen said...

and Cube, thanks (once again) for your chivalrous vote of confidence over at sheaboarding central.

4:55 PM  
Blogger kathleen said...

meanwhile, over at benedictblog, *yet another* new post about gays as of this (wednesday) evening. my cup runneth over.

5:15 PM  
Blogger Pauli said...

"Wheel in the Sky keeps on turning" -- great band, too, killer drummer -- was it Steve Smith? I really liked that song "Lights" with that 6/8 beat and those great "whooooa" harmonies.

6:09 PM  
Blogger Scott Lahti said...

Cube -

I am moved beyond words by your saintly and inveterate acts of Christian charity and educational "outreach" in posting comments to this blog.

I thought I'd pass on two killer items from the current week's installment of the third-best "blog" (as I think they're called; third, that is, after The Immakulate Direktion and those "Skrappy" Kontra-Grungies 'Hi-O SilVal[Steve], Away', 'Johnny B[olton] Goode', 'Pauli Boy', 'The Kathleen O. Reilly Factor', and (as if we had any choice to forget) former president 'Bubba') I've ever read, at

The first item, at top, provides the bread recipe of a lifetime:

"I’m not counting sliced bread as a positive step, but Jim Lahey’s method may be the greatest thing since...the results are indeed fantastic...The loaf is incredible, a fine-bakery quality, European-style boule that is produced more easily than by any other technique I’ve used, and will blow your mind...The baking itself is virtually will be rewarded with the best no-work bread you have ever made."

The other item, second from the bottom, salutes the cream of American radio:

"Chalk it up to convert's zeal - but as of a week ago, just one listen, that's all it took - and I wish I had been tuning into Bob Dylan's Theme Time Radio Hour since its debut in May on XM satellite radio's commercial-free 'Deep Tracks' station on channel 40 - even though it would have required me, in the months before our hearthside transmitter arrived to complement its automotive godfather, to sit out in the cold in our Denali by the garage for an hour. It's a delight - Bob plays his all-over-the-map collections of rarities and venerable chestnuts with an unpretentious blend of hipster cool, puckish humor and innocent childlike glee.*

*[Those without XM radio but with DirecTV on satellite can pick up Bob's show on channel 840 five times weekly (and four times on upper-tier channel 813). The show is also 'broadcast' over the internet, with a free three-day trial for newcomers. See here for details and times.
Bob was in top form with his latest installment, which debuted at 10am Eastern last Wednesday - his theme of the week was Sleep, and among his interdisc patter came a passage from Hamlet's 'To be or not to be' soliloquoy ('For in that sleep of death what dreams may come...'), and others from James Joyce and Rainer Maria Rilke; a clip of Ed Norton from The Honeymooners, calling out while sleepwalking for his beloved childhood dog Lulu, and another clip of 'Third Stooge' Curly snoring in rhythm; a puckish capsule history of the death-defying development of the mattress in the 19th century; even, as Bob riffed on the sleep theme in lore and legend, the theme to the early-1960s Bullwinkle-sidebar Fractured Fairy Tales. To say nothing of the rock, country, folk and blues tracks he played -which included a choice 1966 cut from George Jones ('I must have seventy George Jones records in my collection by now, which also serve as a history of men's hairstyles - here's a track from when George had a brushcut and muttonchop sideburns') - and another from The Monkees ('Love Is Only Sleeping').

Since many of us have played Rip van Winkle during Bob's first six months on the air, the urge to start taping Theme Time Radio Hour instanter meets no resistance. And not for nothing did the Orange County Register say of the show, 'It's as if the guy somehow stole the heart (but not the soul) of a 25-year-old', for within minutes, a listener feels like one of those ghostly hands from the cartoons beckoning characters with seductive aromas has magically lifted you from the muck of latter-day Kulturkampf and set you down unawares smack in the middle of 1966 (when BD was, in fact, 25) at its sunniest, most enchanted and alive with energetic promise, where you have just made fast friends with a newcomer to the bar who you feel like you've known all your life and can't wait to hang with and catch up with world without end.

I like Bob's show."

Back in these comboxes very soon - I've off to do my part in shoulder-to-the-wheel solidarity with The Great Patriotic War to blow a Rod, while doing my feeble damnedest to hide how deeply indebted to him and his blog I really am for my continued *raison d'etre.*

8:17 PM  
Blogger Cubeland Mystic said...


Thank you for the technique I will pass this on to Mrs. Mystic. She's the baker.

She does bread really well. We also have the equipment.

I have trouble with this debate, since we are technically all on the same team so far. It's easy to be saintly with folks on the same team. I am not so saintly with the folks on the other team. I feel at home with religious conservatives.

Even though I don't think this argument is really about style over substance, the book did not do a good job of demonstrating that.

For example, food. The mystic can go weeks without eating store bought vegies, but when I have to go back to them I can sometimes taste the pesticides on the produce. It tastes like the way the house smells if you have it sprayed for bugs. Another example is when you have some processed foods after a fast. They taste excessively smokey, salty, greasy, or stale. These are foods you ate your whole life. Then you think something is not right here.

When you read the lables of common foods a lot of them have sugars added to them. Then you wonder why there is a lot of fat diabetics running around.

Food is so small, I only use it because we all relate to it. But then on the other hand, I wonder how fast the organic movement will last when those ultra hip trendy upper middle class liberal chicks bite into an apple maggot in their unsprayed apple. Or when the organic restaurant gets sued because someone finds a live grasshopper in their salad. Give up poison eat bugs. You can't have it both ways.

9:31 PM  
Blogger kathleen said...

hey Mark Shea, you linked to *my blogger profile* while calling me the Witch Queen of Angmar? you know what? you're a creep, and for all i know a dangerous one. you've got a screw loose.

9:41 PM  
Blogger Tom said...

When it comes to arguments that Western Civilization is not only unsalvagable but not worth salvaging, this is the nuts:

in 50 years, people will still be listening to Journey.

If I believed that, I'd be stockpiling food and textbooks up in the mountains somewhere so hard it'd make squirrels preparing for winter stop and hang their heads in shame.

Since, however, the only people listening to Journey in 50 years will be over 90, I remain sanguine about the future of our civilization.

6:21 AM  
Blogger Pauli said...

What about Urge Overkill? Great arena rock schtick, too bad about Blackie and the China White issue. My take on UO is that it is tribute and parody wrapped up in 90's vermouth-dry sarcasm with great guitar licks and pompous high-collared uniforms. Loved "Sister Havana" and almost everything on Saturation.

6:45 AM  
Blogger kathleen said...

amazon rank for journey's greatest hits: #316
for the cure's greatest hits: #868

dude, i'm so right.

7:05 AM  
Blogger pikkumatti said...

Journey is more '70s than '80s to me. And if we're talking '70s, then that opens up my whole catalog.

But don't get me started on '70s music, 'cause I'll start writing like a Rolling Stone critic and bore hell out of everyone.

10:17 AM  
Blogger No Hassle Loans said...

Hey very nice work here. Although it�s not what I was looking for. I am looking for info on Payday Loans or a Cash Advance. Very interesting site

11:46 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home