In his Los Angeles Times column today, Jonah Goldberg bitches that former radicals who engaged in domestic terrorism in the 1960s are allowed to rejoin society and even obtain teaching positions at reputable universities, while neo-cons who sponsored terrorism in Central American in the 1980s can only get jobs in the Bush Administration.
But the real point of the piece is to reveal Jonah’s Two Patented Secretsto being a smartypants. Number 1: You don’t have to worry about being able to answer the question if you only ask questions that answer themselves!
“Okay, repeat after me in unison, and all together, at the same time: Us am smart!”
Here’s a few brief examples:
I don’t think such associations should cost people their careers or place in polite society. But shouldn’t this baggage cost something?
If you’re United Airlines, the cost is $25 for each bag. Unless your baggage contains cocaine designed to fund a guerrilla war in Nicaragua, in which case it’s on the house, and please enjoy the complimentary beverage service.
Why is it only conservative “cranks” who think it’s relevant that Obama’s campaign headquarters in Houston had a Che Guevara-emblazoned Cuban flag hanging on the wall?
Because the only other person likely to care whether you have a Che poster on your wall is your Mom, and once you move out of the house, she’s not the boss of you anymore. (By the way, Jonah, whinging about these kids today, with their inflammatory decor and their electoral support for mulattoes, is pretty much the job description of “conservative ‘cranks,’” at least according to the listings on Monster.com.
Indeed, why is love of Che still radically chic at all? A murderer who believed that “the U.S. is the great enemy of mankind” shouldn’t be anyone’s romantic hero.
You want romance? Do what conservatives do and stick with the classics: Abelard and Héloise. Apollo and Hyacinthus. Peggy Noonan and Reagan’s shoe…(I first saw President Reagan as a foot, highly polished brown cordovan wagging merrily on a hassock. I spied it through the door. It was a beautiful foot, sleek. Such casual elegance and clean lines! But not a big foot, not formidable, maybe a little …frail. I imagined cradling it in my arms, protecting it from unsmooth roads.)
Why are Fidel Castro’s apologists progressive and enlightened but apologists for Augusto Pinochet frightening and authoritarian?
1) Because the latter group is in authority, and they’ve made a frightening mess of it. And 2) Because none of Castro’s apologists, no matter how much they might admire him, want to see Fidel put incharge of Iraq: (I THINK ALL intelligent, patriotic and informed people can agree: It would be great if the U.S. could find an Iraqi Augusto Pinochet. In fact, an Iraqi Pinochet would be even better than an Iraqi Castro.)
Why was Sen. Trent Lott’s kindness to former segregationist Sen. Strom Thurmond a scandal but Obama’s acquaintance with an unrepentant terrorist a triviality?
Probably because Senator Obama didn’t appear at William Ayers’ birthday party and declare, “I want to say this about my state: When the Weather Underground tried to bomb the Pentagon, we supported them. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either.”
I have my own answers to these questions. But I’m interested in theirs.
Because that’s the second of Jonah’s Two Patented Secrets to being a smartypantload: Cheat off the other guy’s paper.
In the Democratic debate this week, maybe moderators can resist the temptation to repeat healthcare questions for the billionth time
…because who cares about that crap? Voters in this election must deal with issues of war, national security, civil rights, a ballooning deficit, a housing crisis, a deteriorating job market, skyrocketing fuel prices, andincreasingly costly healthcare, and the only way we can determine who is best qualified to lead us through these challenges is for the media to stop dwelling on trivialities and find out who Obama sat next to at the board meetings of a local charity.
…and instead ask America’s foremost liberal representatives why being a radical means never having to say you’re sorry.
And if there’s one thing Jonah’s career has demonstrated, it’s that being an idiot means never having to say you’re sorry, either, since you can usually get by with “oops,” “Mommy!” or “here’s my column — oh, and that stuff that’s making the pages stick together is mayonnaise. Honest.”Posted by scott on Tuesday, February 26th, 2008 at 9:18 pm.