Ultimate Wingnut Challenge: The Lifestyle Team Not Ribbed for Her Pleasure
Today I was going to have the Lifestyle team fight it out with the Blog Stars, but I soon realized that it would basically be putting you in a position where you had to compare whiny, scared, loony apples with obnoxious, self-important, dishonest oranges. So, instead, I decided to let the Lifestyle team fight amongst themselves again. I'm sure they won't be happy about this, but it's not like we were going to please them anyway.
1. First up is James Lileks, who will perform a Screeeeeeedblog selection entitled "UH HUH. WHATEV."
Thesis: Jim doesn't appreciate critical email. Oh, and here are eight simples rules for dating his daughter.
Excerpt:
If you would like your letter to be read and considered, some suggestions.
The term “wingnut” is not as harsh and cutting as you might expect. Personally, I don’t like any of these terms – moonbats, repugs, democraps, etc. (Except for “idiotarian.” I like it because it’s ecumenical.) They’re usually shorthand for broad concepts held by people whose views on other matters may be divergent. Not very helpful. In any case, have you tried to use a wingnut? They’re quite handy if you want to tighten something and you don’t have a wrench. I assume it’s short for “right wing nut,” but if you look at a wingnut, it has two wings. Left and right. You could say it understands both wings, even though it prefers to turn in a clockwise direction.
Or you could say that it believes in the biblical teaching "rightie tightie, lefty loosie," but actually turns both ways, if you know what I mean.
The chickenhawk argument is likewise unpersuasive. But I’ll make a deal: only people with military experience can discuss matters of national security, and only people who grew up in North Dakota can judge the movie “Fargo.” I know what you’re saying: “Fargo” took place almost entirely in Minnesota. Why are you trying to stifle my dissent?
Or how about this: Anybody can express their opinion on the movie Fargo, but we can mock you if you claim that Fargo is the greatest movie ever and other people should be forced to watch watch it, but as for you, you have better things to do.
Anyway, if you follow the above two rules (and the one about not calling Jim names, the one about not bringing up the "shifting rationale" and the lack of WNDs, the one about the Karl Rove memos, etc.), and maybe, just maybe, Jim will read your email. It's something to strive for, at least.
2. For her talent number, Peggy Noonan contributes "Think Dark."
Thesis: We shouldn't close any military bases, because the apocalypse could happen tomorrow, and we might need local soldiers to chase off the mutant terrorist zombies. And anyway, since we're just putting the War on Terror tab our Visa card, it's not like we have to actually pay to keep these bases going.
Excerpt:
As adults living in the world, we know some things. As Murphy taught us, if it can go wrong, it will go wrong. As the journalist Harrison Salisbury said, in summing up what he'd learned in a lifetime observing history, "Expect the unexpected." As JFK taught us, "There's always some poor son of a bitch who doesn't get the word"--someone in the field who doesn't know what's going on and does exactly the wrong thing. As Ronald Reagan once said in conversation, man has never invented a weapon he didn't ultimately use.
And as Ronald Reagan said on "Saturday Night Live" that time when he was played by Phil Hartman, and White House official John Belushi Jon Lovitz [thanks, Mr. Sadly, No! for the correction] complained that he didn't understand the Iran/Nicaragua operation, "And you don't need to understand! I am the President, and only I need to understand. Is that clear?" Words to ponder.
When you think dark, you're often and inescapably thinking with your gut, a vulgar way of referring to a certainty that lives somewhere between your spirit, soul and intellect. Your gut knows things your brain can't assert as fact because they're not facts, not yet. It can take guts to listen to your gut.
And Peggy's gut is telling her that we're doomed, DOOMED!
Okay, maybe it's the drugs and not her gut, but still, she's been seeing visions of a dark future: a future where only Kevin Costner and Fort Gillem can save us.
Among the things we may face over the next decade, as we all know, is another terrorist attack on American soil. But let's imagine the next one has many targets, is brilliantly planned and coordinated. Imagine that there are already 100 serious terror cells in the U.S., two per state.
Hey, if we're going to imagine stuff, let's imagine that the only way to defeat these terrorists is to send Arnold Schwarzenegge, James Bond, and Spock back in time to kill Sadam's mother before he was born. Now, wouldn't that be kind of cool?
Imagine they're planning that on the same day in the not-so-distant future, they will set off nuclear suitcase bombs in six American cities, including Washington, which will take the heaviest hit. Hundreds of thousands may die; millions will be endangered. Lines will go down, and to make it worse the terrorists will at the same time execute the cyberattack of all cyberattacks, causing massive communications failure and confusion. There will be no electricity; switching and generating stations will also have been targeted. There will be no word from Washington; the extent of the national damage will be as unknown as the extent of local damage is clear. Daily living will become very difficult, and for months--food shortages, fuel shortages. Let's make it worse. On top of all that, on the day of the suitcase nukings, a half dozen designated cells will rise up and assassinate national, state and local leaders. There will be chaos, disorder, widespread want; law-enforcement personnel, or what remains of them, will be overwhelmed and outmatched.
And on top of all that, it turns out that the terrorists had infiltrated the army bases in your locale, and they manage to gain control of the missiles, gun, tanks, and MREs, and they use them to kill your dog. Now, don't you wish we had eliminated those bases back in 2005?
Oh, wait, that's not Peggy's point -- her point is that after the robot holocaust, we will need the military bases "for the feeling of protection and for the thing itself." Sure, we could save $50 billion by closing some bases, but if the Al Qaeda triffids attack, we'll need the local soldiers "to help maintain some semblance of order" (i.e., they can declare Martian law, which requires that unmarried couples having sex get hitched).
So, I suggest that instead of closing the bases, we sell them (complete with weapons and soldiers), to Peggy, so she can feel safe.
3. Submitted for your consideration: "The rejection of materialism (Part XXI)," the latest in Dennis Prager's never-ending series on why Judeo-Christian values are better than sliced-bread values.
Thesis: God says that Judeo-Christians should vote against their economic interests to prove that they aren't materialistic. In fact, Jesus taught, "Blessed are the poor who vote to repeal the death tax, for they shall help Paris Hilton to inherit the earth."
Excerpt:
The recent best seller "What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America," by liberal author Thomas Frank, perfectly illustrates this point. The theme of his book is that Americans of a lower economic status who vote Republican do so against their own (economic) interests. When I dialogued with the personable Mr. Frank on my radio show, he seemed incapable of understanding that many millions of Americans consider the Left's attempt to redefine marriage, for example, more important than the alleged economic advantages of voting Democrat.
And anyway, while the Bible does say that we have an obligation to assist the poor, nobody today qualifes as poor by the standards of several thousand years ago..
But such concerns were never the only Judeo-Christian values, and the "poor" in biblical nomenclature were truly destitute, not at all analogous to those classified as "poor" in America. Overwhelmingly, the "poor" of America live in a home with two or more rooms per person and air conditioning, and own a car, refrigerator, stove, clothes washer and dryer and microwave. They have two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player and a stereo, and obtain medical care (even without health insurance). Nearly half actually own their own homes.
Yes, today's poor people have it pretty damn good, since they have stoves. So God says that we don't have to help them, or the orphans or the widows. He added that He would rather that we keep the money we would have wasted on a certain man who fell among thieves on his way to Jericho (because he brought it on himself by not traveling armed -- and anyway, we don't want to make him dependent on handouts), and use it to buy ourselves a really nice car and Rolex. Because "Even freedom is a higher value to one who holds Judeo-Christian values." And freedom to not help poor people is truest kind of freedom.
And this is the part of our program where you get to vote to banish one of our Lifestyle contestants from Wingnut Island. (And remember, wingnuts can turn both ways, but prefer to turn right until they strip their threads. That's kind of an analogy). So, vote for Lileks, Peggy or Dennis. Do it for freedom.
3:48:50 AM 
|
|
