Sunday, November 05, 2006

Conspiracy Theories.

On the heels of Saddam's receiving the death sentence, Rod underscored the brutality of Saddam's regime, writing, "one of the trial witnesses talked of being dragged into a torture center with his family, and seeing a meat grinder with blood and human hair under it."

It's funny that the term "meat grinder" would come up, because the last time he used the term, it was as metaphor for the situation in Iraq: "Voting against the Republicans makes it more likely that he and men like him won't be sent into the meat grinder to preserve this president's self-image."

I doubt we're wrong, but Bush and his supporters -- myself included -- may be wrong in believing that Iraq can become a relatively stable, relatively free country; we may be wrong in believing that the cause is vital to our national interests and we may even be wrong in believing that withdrawing in defeat would have dire consequences for our credibility around the world. We could be sincerely wrong, but Rod no longer gives the administration the benefit of even that little doubt: he thinks we're in Iraq "to preserve this president's self-image."

Disgusting and shameful as that comment was, it has proven to be a warm-up for this bit of conspiracy mongering:
"Justice was done in [Saddam's] trial, and even though you cannot convince me that the verdict was not planned to help Republicans with the election, I still thank God for it." [emphasis mine]

Like the looniest Leftist, Rod Dreher is immediately questioning the timing of this verdict.

It's likely that this parody site has just outlived its usefulness; it's hard to satirize someone who's jumped over this particular cliff.


Blogger Pauli said...

Bubba: "It's likely that this parody site has just outlived its usefulness..."

Oh, nice; I finally get made a cardinal in the last post and you talk like we're closing. Just my luck.

2:11 PM  
Blogger Clark said...

Hey, I agree with you here. Anything that brings attention to Iraq hurts the Republicans, and I think that they know that.

5:00 PM  
Blogger Cubeland Mystic said...


You’re churning out the posts like hamburger from a meat grinder today. I predict that the Republicans are going to win big on Tues. Whenever the press talks about how bad the republicans are going to lose, that usually means the opposite. It is especially hysterical this year, hence the prediction. Be prepared for more voter intimidation stories.

If you all are Cardinals, can I at least be the token schismatic? You know “in“, but not quite “in“. Sort of the Lefevre of the group?

What’s SVS. . .the Inquisition?

5:21 PM  
Blogger kathleen said...

you know, my outrage over the foley-media-overhype was simmering down because it happened so very long ago (note to democrats, it's "october surprise", not "*early* october surprise") but now the latest media bluster over this pastor haggard has got me fired up all over again to vote straight republican. like some closet-case preacher in colorado springs WHO ONCE ACTED AS ADVIIIIISOR TO THE WHIIIIIIITE HOOOOUSSSSSE is going to sway my vote. nice try, bbc/abc/nbc/cbs/npr/pbs.

and clark, thanks for that bizarre non-sequitur.

6:03 PM  
Blogger pikkumatti said...

Today is a great day. The victims of a tyrant attained justice over that tyrant for his crimes against those victims, and did it in a civilized manner.

Rod exhibits a special kind of cynicism, not only in questioning the political timing of the verdict, but worse yet in wondering whether it was the Iraqi people (the victims) who made Saddam behave as he did.

I am utterly disgusted by his post.

7:19 PM  
Blogger Pauli said...

Oh, come on folks, it's probably just a botched joke. I mean good freakin' grief or whatever.

8:17 PM  
Blogger Diane said...

Kathleen, my DH says the same thing. The Dems' dirty tricks have him more energized and motivated to go to the polls than he's been in years. (He always votes, but now he's really gonna vote--LOL.)

I feel much the same way. When people keep telling me over and over that I'm too depressed to vote, I get my Irish up and respond, "Like Hell I am!"

I hope a lot of people feel that way.

9:16 PM  
Blogger Diane said...

Pauli--LOL! :)

9:16 PM  
Blogger pikkumatti said...

Pauli, you're right. I'll lighten up. Rod's words were ambiguous.

I just misinterpreted.

8:07 AM  
Blogger Tom said...


If the CC blog were hosted by Reasonedopinionnet, you might have a point. If Rod wrote for Informedjudgmentnet, he could rightly be called to task.

As it is, though, we're dealing with a site where, "I have no proof of that, of course, but that's what I believe," constitutes a sound argument.

8:50 AM  
Blogger SiliconValleySteve said...

Gee I go away for a weekend and you guys have formed a church. Thanks for remembering me Mystic and I accept the position of Inquisitor General.

I will be the contra-crunchy Tomás de Torquemada. As Sebastián de Olmedo said of him: he was "The hammer of heretics, the light of Spain, the saviour of his country, the honour of his order" Sounds good to me.

9:19 AM  
Blogger kathleen said...

oh lord, not again. dreher has linked to a larison post about how the contras ruined the crunchy debate because we just don't get it man. (in true larison fashion, the post is about 10 paragraphs too long, and will induce narcolepsy). at least larison does take some responsibility for viciousness on his side of the "debate"... before he turns around and discusses what lunkheads we are regardless.

I'm fascinated that benedict and friends are so concerned with how they are coming off in this debate. I'm also fascinated that they so rudely demand a more thorough, patient and objective inquisitor than Bubba. (while proud of my role as authoress of the CRUNCHY GRANOLA SONG, i don't pretend to be half as engaged as bubba with the meat of this stuff).

11:24 AM  
Blogger kathleen said...

hey larison, since we know you're reading us and that you're so proud of your masters thesis for university of chicago, maybe you would be interested in this book published by the university's press:


the book deals specifically with legal writing, but its principles are applicable to all polemical writing: "The book ... offers valuable insights into the writing process: how to organize ideas, create and refine prose, and improve editing skills. In essence, it teaches straight thinking—a skill inseparable from good writing."

of course, one has to wonder: if straight thinking is inseparable from good writing, what sort of thinking is inseparable from bad writing?

11:53 AM  
Blogger pikkumatti said...

Kathleen, why oh why did you tease me into reading that Larison post? I'm guessing there is a pony in that pile somewhere, but it involves more digging than I care to do.

Actually, I feel more like I was in the audience in the game show scene of Billy Madison:

Principal: Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it.

12:13 PM  
Blogger Bubba said...

Larison and Rod are taking a look back at the debates over crunchy conservatism. To the surprise of absolutely no one, it's all the critics' fault that the debates didn't go as well.

12:17 PM  
Blogger Diane said...

Good grief. Insecure or what?

These guys aren't even ready for the minor leagues.

12:43 PM  
Blogger pikkumatti said...

Actually, now I know why Rod didn't take my comments seriously. They were not grounded strongly in agrarianism, liturgical Christianity and an even deeper respect for embodying the requirements of a living tradition. Little wonder I appeared to be simply interested in validating [my] own preferences.

Back I go to my copies of Kirk, Bradford, Chesterton, the Agrarians, Wendell Berry, Weaver, and Prof. Lukacs. Then I can stick up for the Crocodile Hunter with some credibility.

Sheesh. The elders in our new Church have even more respect from me, now that I know what they've been up against lo these past months.

12:58 PM  
Blogger Diane said...

LOL! Not like Rod has ever been interested in "validating [his] own preferences."

Not much. ;)

Herein lies the crux of What They Just Don't Get: So what? So what if Crunchy X or Non-Crunchy Y validates his or her own preferences? As long as it's legal and reasonably ethical, a preference is just a preference. There is no grandiose moral content inherent in the preference for an organic tomato over a supermarket one. Or vice versa. Personal preferences are just that and nothing more. Not worth writing a blinking book about, let alone blowing up into a gosh-darn religion. Ack.

Cardinal Diane

1:37 PM  
Blogger Cubeland Mystic said...

What right does the government or large corporations have to impose their "values" and "traditions" on me?

If I want to go get fresh milk in a mason jar from a local dairy why can't i do it?

Why do I have to pay taxes when my children already exceed expectations for their grade levels. If I am willing to home school why should I have to pay higher taxes?

The issues are not just about food. There are issues. Both Dems and Reps use regulation to their advantage. Some times those regs hurt little people. Sometimes they are intended to destroy competition.

It is more than just organic food. My question to the crunchies is where are you? Why aren't you here debating. I am here. I support a lot of your ideas. There is nothing to be afraid of from fellow conservatives.

2:19 PM  
Blogger Cubeland Mystic said...

BTW, I voted mail-in today. All Republican.

My hand did not tremble!

4:27 PM  
Blogger Pauli said...

Cubeland: "If I am willing to home school why should I have to pay higher taxes?"

I don't think you have to be "crunchy" to ask that question and ones like it. The only criticism you could make is that maybe conservative politicians should try to push this at the local level, you know, go up against a municipality and a school board and basically try to defund their educational industrial complex. I would vote for someone like that in a heartbeat......and most likely he'd lose in a landslide.

If the public schools continue to underperform home-schoolers and private schools then it will become more possible to push for a pay-per-use model with a strong, grassroots effort. This is one of the biggest problems I have with crunchies -- they fail to see many practical problems facing so-called mainstream conservative politicians and prioritize differently as a result. Then they point the finger at the most conservative guys (Santorum, Allen) and they say "you must go!" Yeah, a really practical approach, that.

6:28 AM  
Blogger Diane said...

The property-tax issue doesn't bother me, but then, we livee in the Land of Low Property Taxes. Easy for me to say....

Diane whose kids are homeschooled

7:32 AM  
Blogger Cubeland Mystic said...

Pauli, I agree with you.

I am in a rush. I am disappointed that no one laughed at my "hand did not tremble" quip. :-(

Did anyone get it?

I will try to reply tonight.

7:48 AM  
Blogger Cubeland Mystic said...

Forget Rod and crunchy conservatism! As I am writing this Santorum lost his seat. I am very upset that a good man like that would lose.

Who chairs the senate judiciary committee for the next two years if the republicans lose the senate? That’s for all you “conservatives” to consider. You wanted to punish the Republicans. Feel better now.

Sorry, I don’t feel like the thinking any more. Too pissed.

7:09 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home