In the unlikely event some of you might still be interested in David Neiwert’s increasingly embarrassing attempts to foist his own personal view of “masculinity” on the universe by way of sheer “intellectual” will, here is his response to yesterday’s post on the subject. For those interested only in the abridged version of Neiwert’s rejoinder, here’s Slart in the comments, offering a concise summary: All of this is just proving

Bob Owens at Confederate Yankee is making quite a career out of picking up the telephone these days. To wit, an AP story published Friday made the following claim — sure to bring about the same kind of “concern” among the anti-war types (and their media enablers) as did NBC’s (inadvertant) infomercial for Dragon Skin body armor: Troops training for and fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are firing

In his New Republic book review of Lucy Riall’s Garibaldi: Invention of a Hero, Alexander Stille writes: Riall does not overemphasize the modernity of Garibaldi; she recognizes that he is not quite our contemporary. One of the interesting cultural differences that separates us from the culture of the Garibaldi cult is the almost willful use of wholly invented stories and details in the vast majority of Garibaldi biographies that circulated

Me: “So, tell me about your relationship with Mike. Did he ever, y’know –” Hush Puppies: “– If it’s all the same to you, I’d rather not talk about that asshole right now. Okay?”*

Tell me if any of this sounds vaguely familiar to you. From Theodore Dalrymple, writing in the City Journal: In an effort to ensure that no Muslim doctors ever again try to bomb Glasgow Airport, bureaucrats at Glasgow’s public hospitals have decreed that henceforth no staff may eat lunch at their desks or in their offices during the holy month of Ramadan, so that fasting Muslims shall not be offended

Dan did a fine job yesterday pointing up the almost surreal blinkeredness of David Neiwert’s bizarre attempt to play Dr Phil to the blogosphere’s troubled hypermasculinist “conservatives” — which Neiwert does in a strained argument for redefining masculinity that echoes not only Jim Henley’s musings on the topic, but also the much longer disquisition from Dr Ric Caric, whose essay on the “weenie man” I linked and (obliquely) commented on

Joe Lieberman, epitomizing the anti-masculine qualities of an arch conservative in today’s WSJ Opinion Journal: […]Now the Damascus airport is the point of entry into Iraq for most of the suicide bombers who are killing innocent Iraqi citizens and American soldiers, and trying to break America’s will in this war. It is therefore time to demand that the Syrian regime stop playing travel agent for al Qaeda in Iraq. When

Just, wow. In the run-up to the 2004 Democratic National Convention, when it was not yet clear who Bush’s opponent would be that November, Rove and his aides had begun to fear that their most dangerous foe would be then-Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina. With his Southern base, charismatic style and populist message, Edwards, they believed, could be a real threat to Bush’s reelection. But instead of attacking Edwards,

There is something self-deconstructing about this post by David Neiwert. Can you spot it? People who talk about masculinity — especially conservatives, who seem to obsess about it, but in a peculiarly juvenile way — have always seemed a little weird to me. It’s like the cliche retort the wealthy like to use: “If you have to ask how much it is, you can’t afford it.” Masculinity is one of

Pattie Boyd burst into tears when she found George Harrison had died. “I know I should have refused, But I’m happy to’ve been their muse” I regret allowing myself to be seduced by Eric and wish I had been stronger. I believed marriage was for ever, and when things were going wrong between George and me I should have gritted my teeth and worked through them. And I wish I’d