March 18, 2012

“We have to prepare for a decades-long fight to the death.”

Against conservatives. Here in the U.S.

Fortunately, this admonition wasn’t uttered by some rightwinger, whose substandard morality has with certainty been gauged by his political inclinations — and was instead uttered by a progressive professor, whose resolute goodness cannot be questioned, thanks to his willingness to identify as a progressive, and to show fidelity to the progressive belief structure.

— The upshot being, DU creative writing Professor Brian Kiteley doesn’t have to worry about distancing himself from this particular asshole.

So, like, whew!

Posted by Jeff G. @ 2:41pm

Comments (49)

  1. It’s not really a fight. It is parasitism. The leftist paradigm cannot sustainably ever feed itself. One dialectic fails without the other to feed off of.

  2. Sorry that the first post for this thread is off topic, but I wanted to give you a heads up if you’re interested, Jeff.
    Over at the ever declining Ace of Spades, Gabriel Malor does a post on the ‘EO’ that spends about half of it taking slaps at you and the other half justifying it all by quoting Ed Morrisey over at the equally declining and ever more joined at the hip with Ace, ‘Hot Air’.
    We should all relish the opportunity for hand to hand combat whenever it arises.

  3. Taking shots at me? Why? I posted this to Twitter asking people’s positions, noting I wasn’t an expert. Then I found the Clinton EO and updated. And in my original post and comments to it I noted it might very well be just a routine update.

    Meh. Who cares.

  4. But thanks for the heads up.

  5. I am not sure you can describe modern conservatives without Godwinning.

  6. It must be to remind their readership that you’re “fundamentally unserious.”

    That’s the dextrosphere’s version of cooties, right?

  7. He uses you as the prime example as to why – especially the part about conscription without pay- is false, says no such thing, and is just hysteria on the part of anyone alarmed by the EO.
    Should you decide to mosey on over there, my money’s on you, pally. I believe Mr Malor would get a first hand lesson on why it’s never a good idea to bring a knife to a gunfight.

  8. “Serious” over at ACE’s place means selling out to win by losing in a hopefully winful manner so our own leadership moves left by our hands. It means being a dumb blind sucker in the hopes of facing a battle that we “can’t” win because so it has been prophesied by our enemies both within and without the party.

    It’s Denethor’s way.

    (Y’know…black ships on the river with black sales. I have seen these things in the palantir. Gondor is lost. Prepare my pyre. Don’t listen to the hobbits or the wizard. Theoden was a fool to awaken from his dotage and now he has been slain though the fools who follow him fight on. It is time for sensible men to seek the mercy of the flames or the orcs and their dread lord as they choose. )

  9. It is the way of managed decline.

  10. ” . It means being a dumb blind sucker in the hopes of NOT facing a battle that we “can’t” win ”


  11. The Japes of Splayeds again, eh? Ralph.

  12. Yeah, ol’ Ace seems to be afflicted with ‘Big Tent’ fever lately.
    My delete finger’s gettin’ itchy again….

  13. I think Gabe “likes” Jeff and is trying to get his negative attention.

  14. Well, it’s interesting to see alliances forming. Malor and Doug Mataconis, for instance.

    What is interesting to me is that I sent out Tweets last night specifically asking for thoughts on this. In them, I noted I wasn’t an expert. And I did the best I could to pore over older EOs and note similarities.

    But rather than respond to my Tweets — and to borrow from Marconis — “the usual suspects” (that’d be the Hobbits and not terribly helpful or “sane” conservatives) were singled out in posts pretending to scratch their heads over the HYSTERIA, with Malor using me as an example.

    These posts of theirs were written this morning. My post was updated and replete with an updated conclusion that the current EO seems to be a routine update of a ’94 EO last evening, within about a half hour or hour of the original posting (that’s how long it took me to find what I was looking for and read the comments at other sites).

    Which suggests to me that they were more concerned with establishing a dichotomy of the kinds of sites on the right with their posts, than they were with helping to answer questions posed as questions (and not as ironclad assertions of fact).

    But hey: it’s not like anyone is trying to re-define what comes to count as conservatism as “sane Romney supporter,” right?

  15. being concerned about what paperwork is coming out of the baracky wh is crazy. just ax the catholic bishops?

  16. Jeff, I’m convinced there is no bent towards tyranny that Gabe Malor will not set himself up as an apologist for.To him, pointing out the man who is pointing a loaded gun at you with a license to kill by writ in the other hand is conspiracy mongering. It is a particular mania suffered by those who fear making waves amongst the elite and jeopardizing their membership in the club.

  17. Malor is doing a textualist reading based on presumed good faith of that “good man”. I would be more inclined to not see the intent of the EO writer[s] as being “good” in the sense of that term that I hold as being true to the founding of this nation.

    There is also the idea put forth that the EO needed to be amended to account for the DHS. Since GWB is said to have amended this EO twice wouldn’t he have already have done so? I think I need to get the last GWB one and do a comparison to see just what was changed.

  18. Now fellas, you can’t expect people who support the super-successful business titan and handsome, pure family man Willard Romney to have any reservations about executive orders. After all, Mitt plans to use the magic EO wand to wipe clean the nation from the stain of Obamneycare. Or something like that.

    There has to be someone out there with a better explanation of this dicey promise suitor Romney has made about signing an executive order on day one giving waivers to all the states. Does this refer to a wholly original executive order, cut out of pure Romney silken weft? Or does this refer to some provision in Obamacare that permits the President to issue waivers to states until they set up certain programs that are in compliance with Pelosi’s 2700 page “law?”

    Am I the only one who has noticed that Romney never seems to explain just what this order will be? Because if it’s an entirely original EO that Mittens cooks up out of blank White House letterhead, I have three words for him: Truman, steel mills.

    I keep thinking that this order which Romney claims he will sign when his polished Bally loafers take step one on the Oval Carpet, must be something that the law already permits him or Obama to do. Because if he thinks he can gainsay the duly enacted law of the land, and a law beloved by liberals, the Democrats will haul him in front of SCOTUS, screaming “Constitutional crisis!” so hard their alveoli will fleck Scalia’s face.

    The Democrats will claim that Romney is using executive power to override properly enacted legislation, and they will be right. Mittens must be praying that SCOTUS finds the mandate unconstitutional.

  19. I think I need to get the last GWB one and do a comparison to see just what was changed.

    Precisely. I’d be curious.

    Because there is always implied the “why now?” question, isn’t there?

  20. Kids, don’t question people like Malor. He’s, like, a lawyer and shit, so he’s smarter than you. Did you spend years in law school learning how to fabricate problems for future clients at $500 per hour, billable? No, you did not.

  21. I went through the EO post and comments by skimming a bit with Google Reader as I often do when I’ve missed lots and lots of stuff.

    Then, a decent bit later, I came across the Malor post and saw the link here. And I immediately thought to myself, “Sure, I was only skimming it and maybe I’m already misremembering but wasn’t Jeff being a bit circumspect there?”

    So I came back and looked. Yep, circumspect.

  22. Harvey Mansfield speaking of the Presidency on the occasion of celebrating George Washington’s birthday at AEI:

    * * * “Now the idea of a strong executive was also new. That was an invention of modern political science, traceable to Machiavelli, who used the word executive — esecuzione — in two senses. First, execution as “carrying something out”, following it out to its end. In that sense, the executive is doing the will of someone else besides you, so it’s a subordinate function. But the second sense of execution, it’s still the same in English as well as Italian, is killing, [finger across the neck gesture!] capital punishment. Hmm. An independent exercise of will by the executive. To execute a law, it’s not enough to say “please”. You may meet resistance. You have to overcome this resistance, possibly even execute a resistor. The number one meaning of executive means a weak executive and the number two one means a strong one. This is the ambivalence of executive power. It has, um, it can represent a strong and independent action but as in number two it can merely execute with the will of somebody else, say, the will of Congress, the will of the Courts, the will of the people, or the statement of the law. Sometimes government can be stronger if it pretends to be weak; if it pretends to be carrying out the will of someone else besides itself, and not the author or initiator of whatever it is the executive is doing.”

    Mistrust, it seems to me, is perfectly in order where it comes to executive action. Could be good, could be bad, and in large measure will depend on who is carrying it out and with what aims in view.

  23. If Erik (with a K) Loomis has never seen an innovative thought from a conservative, he needs to get himself to the Hip Rutherford site and see the clever ridicule being heaped on FROTUS.

    It’s comfort food:

  24. URI? Perhaps I should stop by and explain to Professor Loomis that if he wants to get it on, it ain’t gonna take decades.

  25. Here is the 1994 Clinton EO and here and here are the G. W. Bush amendments.

  26. From the top of the piece at the link:

    Are Conservatives Any Crazier Today Than 50 Years Ago?

    Rick Perlstein suggests not in an excellent essay placing today’s wingnuts in context.

    But you should just see them in a less than excellent essay placing today’s wingnuts in context. Or out of context with some Vaseline on the lens and a rose filter.

    I mean, wow.

    So anyway, this clown is a perfesser? WTF is it with perfessers around these topics? Wasn’t Perfesser Cancer a perfesser? And that perfesser guy from Tennysee?

  27. It appears at first glance that the Obama EO is very similar to the Clinton one. mainly differing in putting the DHS into and at the head of the list of heads to implement the EO and also adding in the other Secretaries like Energy. Just a quick look over.

  28. Oh, and Malor is weak. Who said he could work with men?

  29. “Are Conservatives Any Crazier Today Than 50 Years Ago?”

    they didn’t seek a ban on the edison light bulb 50 years ago nor today. whereas proggtards….

  30. Just took a look at the comments under Malor’s post. A good portion of the comments are really laying the lumber to Gabriel. And Gabriel isn’t taking to kindly to being challenged.

    It’s a hoot.

  31. “I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr”. Francis Cardinal George, Archbishop of Chicago, 2010.

    Before the HHS mandate at least one Catholic bishop knew we are fighting implacable enemies. They want to kill us.

  32. So, speaking of Malor, did he read this, I wonder? I mean, that’s crazy, right?

  33. funny dis

    That’s a very crude analysis of racism! They stroke themselves with this belief that because they support the Democratic Party, they are certified non-racists. Where’s the self-criticism? Isn’t it at least possible that their party’s policies represent a low opinion of black people, that they are paternalistic, that they take advantage of a seemingly locked in voting bloc?


  34. Like I said, Pablo, I sometimes wonder if posts like that don’t have less to do with, eg., the EO than they do with pissing on a shrub to mark territory.

    I mean, I certainly tried to be careful with my post. I even reached out on Twitter to get other people’s thoughts. Plus, I was quite willing to find and note correctives to my initial misconceptions about what language was already extant in prior EOs of this nature.

  35. “with pissing on a shrub to mark territory”

    peggy noonan/brooks/frum/medved/hewitt/etta al crowd? they really write good bs but some look at the name and don’t want the product no mo’.

  36. Jeff G. trying to be careful is laudable. If Gabriel can make a good solid case that this EO is no big deal, then great.

    But I think Gabriel currently has a pretty fucking gigantic hole in the wall of the temple he built to honor the truth.

    His composed, sniff filled lectures on how to maintain calm, dignified intellectual reliability, and demand the uncompromising exercise of rigorous due diligence before commenting kind of ring hollow after three months of giving in to the impulses of panic and cheap demagoguery wherever Gingrich or Santorum was concerned.

    Jeff, if you did make some mistake in asking questions, then is the dude who loudly cried “theocrat” in a serious sober tone to scare away Santorum support, really the right guy to point out any errors you might have made ?

  37. “We have to prepare for a decades-long fight to the death.”

    Yet it’s conservatives and classical liberals who have to watch their language.

  38. Born to work to death.

    Before Shin crawled through that electric fence and ran off into the snow, no one born in a North Korean political prison camp had ever escaped. As far as can be determined, Shin is still the only one to do so.

  39. Bristol brings a big fucking snark hammer.

    After all, I’ve always felt you understood my plight more than most because your mom was a teenager.

  40. I wonder if RI is aware that one of their professors is an aspiring jihadi?

  41. Most likely he’s a poser, radical chic being a long-standing university tradition now.

  42. Here‘s our aspiring jihadi.

    Not sure if that link will work for everyone.

  43. This ought to work. He looks…frightening.

  44. Totally OT: Manning is going to Denver according to Chris Mortensen. Broncos will attempt to trade Tebow.

  45. Now Jacksonville has a chance to undo their prior screwup WRT Tebow. Whatever else Tebow might bring to the game, he would help a great deal in filling their stadium.

    I predict they won’t, though.

  46. After the way Denver scrambled to throw Tebow under the bus, if he were somehow to end up with Atlanta I could see myself finally rooting for the Falcons.

  47. This ought to work. He looks…frightening.

    actually, he does look a little scary. In a “madman in the bell-tower” sort of way.

  48. Srsly. Didn’t he just get arrested for shooting up a Dutch day-care or something?

  49. Shave his head and you’ve got Jared Loughner.