I have written a silly sonnet about what it would be like if a friend of mine from high school became a neocon:
Sonnet LXVI- Hannahtized
While Miss Spiro once wore a dear, cute grin,A measured smirk is nowdays on her lips
Which are silent, except for when she drips
Thanksgivings for whatever war, her chin
Bobbing in prayers that we might bomb Iran.
Yea, since my friend embraced Bill Kristol's creed,
There's no second when she is not in need
Of a soapbox to show-and-tell her plan.
First, pointing with the ruler in her fist,
Hannah taps the oil-rich states to fall
(Except for Saudi Arabia, all).
After China, she smiles at a twist:
Once her black boots will for some moments prance,
She feints on California, then takes France.
The title comes from Sean Hannity's word for a full political conversion to his side, "Hannitized". The line 5 prayer was inspired by
Norman Podhoretz, affectionately known as Poddy to those inside the Beltway, the ultra-neoconservative who has said he prays that Bush will bomb Iran. Although my friend doesn't believe in God, anyone is more pious than a man who prays for warfare like Poddy does.As she is a liberal, and I a paleocon, I hoped that we could both get a laugh out of it. Sadly, I can;t find her email address now that she goes to Mount Holyoke. If anyone from NHS knows it (they'll know who I'm talking about), please tell me so i can send her the poem and some Christmas greetings.
posted by crusader @ 11:04 PM
6 Comments:
Can you either explain, or tell me where to find an explanantion of, the meanings of the various conservative "types" (palaeocon, neocon, crunchycon) I have no idea what this stuff means.
My attempted synopsis,
Paleoconservative- that would be the school of Pat Buchanan and Joe Sobran, which follows in the heritage of the conservative movement of the days of Coolidge (one of my favorite presidents) and Hoover. Paleocons generally oppose the New Deal and the Great Society, and although paleocon Barry Goldwater was against the Religious Right, most paleocons since have been very attached to traditional values since the culture war really took off. Paleocons are noninterventionists, and many are opposed to free trade, or at least to managed trade proposals like NAFTA and CAFTA. They are very strong on border security.
Neoconservative- this movement grew out of a brand of conservatism adopted by many ex-Trotskyites who later became rightists. The movement is dominated by secular intellectuals. Although they are often characterized as greedy and bloodthirsty, I find that most neocons are driven by a fanatical love of liberal democracy, which they desire to spread by any means necessary. Although many or most neocons like small government (though they look up to FDR) and are in favor of family values, these values are subservient to the need to spread democracy and capitalism throughout the world. This is why, despite just war theory and the prospect of perpetual war, Catholic neocons like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity support the Iraq war, a tough stance on Iran, and are willing to support pro-choice candidates like Giuliani. Neocons have a notorious tolerance for big government, generally believe in open borders, and because they dominate the G.O.P., they are much more partisan than the paleocons (who detest both neoconservative and Democratic policies).
Crunchy cons, not really an influential group, are essentially traditional values people who care about the environment, and support government programs and treaties to reduce carbon emissions, etc. They are quite pious, but have little concern for small government or fiscal conservatism.
Thanks!
Hello! I have been perusing your blog (with varied attentiveness) over the last few months, and I thought it time to introduce myself/make a few comments.
First off, I must say that I am rather impressed with the way you unabashedly proclaim your beliefs (though I must admit to not entirely agreeing with a few of them.)
I find it in incredibly poor taste that many people feel it necessary to leave comments which are quite insulting, and, on the whole, do nothing to promote their view/cause. It makes these people seem unreasonable and unintelligent. Many of the comments which they have left seem to me to be aimed at nothing other than to hurt and insult.
On the flip side, I have been impressed with some of the dialogue which has gone on between yourself and others in the case of opposing view points. There seems to be a reasonable amount of openness on both ends, and it is refreshing to see intelegent conversation without the level of animosity that seems to have crept into many of the comments I have seen posted here.
I consider myself to be a devoted Catholic- I attend mass weekly (at the very least) and adhere to the Church's rules and Traditions. Unlike many of those who comment here, I do not make exceptions to my Catholicism for gays, abortion, or the like. I say this because I feel that on many issues, you seem to have a very pre-vatican II way of thinking.
Most especially disturbing to me was a comment made some time back about females being unfit as Eucharistic ministers. (I do not know the exact phrasing you used, I do, however, remember being rather taken aback by the forceful way you described them, in comparision with the devil.)
You seem to be very strict about following the teachings of the Church without question, yet although the Church allows these feamle ministers, you seem to take offense to this.
Correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to simply be one in a line of comments that make me believe that you have very little esteem for those who you refer to as "the fairer sex." Yet, much of what you say seems to contradict the idea that you feel females are the "fairer sex." In fact, you often seem to hold women in a rather low regard.
I have noticed frequent references to how "hot" a certain girl is, and the idea that a woman is to be entirely submissive to her husband. I have also noticed that you often spend an excess amount of time focusing on the external qualities of a woman.
This seems to me to be rather degrading, and I must admit that I have more than once felt compelled to comment on certain posts which have contained comments that seem entirely inappropriate.
I suppose the point of this rather lengthy comment is that I am wondering exactly what it is that makes you believe that women are somehow inferior, or unworthy.
Or perhaps this is not you feeling at all, though if not, you may want to revise your way of writing about females.
I would also like to point out htat perhaps your rigid traditionalism is causing you to percieve that women are, in the eyes of the Church, not worthy. In that case, I would suggest that you closely examine your beliefs, and how they line up with those of the Church. Do you believe in what you believe because you actually, strongly, feel that it is right, or do you believe these things simply because you feel that you are expected to believe them?
I obviously don't know you, and I apologize if I have taken the liberty of presuming anything about your character.
Thank you for a wonderfully entertaining blog, it is really very refreshing to see someone who not only has values in todays rapidly declining society, but who is also willing to stand up for them.
I must say "Brava!" to you for that.
-Jenna
Jenna, thank you so very much for your thoughtful comment! I enjoy such discussions, and I am proud to host them on my blog.
I also do not remember the exact instance in which I expressed my disapproval of female as eucharistic ministers. In any case, my reference likely spoke of female eucharistic ministers for rhetorical purposes; I thought I had clarified previously, but I do not like the idea of eucharistic ministers period.
While you may interpret favoring having only the priest pass out Holy Communion (and having the faithful receive on the tongue)as rigid traditionalism, I see it as a way to increase respect for the Eucharist and for the priesthood. One of the reasons I oppose the reforms of the Second Vatican Council and the subsequent liturgical reform is that they generally move away from creating an atmosphere of mystery and reverence with a more formless, casual air. Besides that the Eucharist is a wonderful sacrament which should be handled and received in only the most respectful manner, the reforms which have brought the sublimest Sacrament down to the level of the people have produced more base concepts of the Sacrament in the people. Belief in Transubstantiation is at an all-time low, around 30% of Catholics. We should know by now that the reforms have not worked by their fruits. I view the transformation of the canon (visibly) from a prayer of the priest on behalf of the people to God, in a hushed tone, to a prayer half-addressed to the congregation, whom he faces as if they were the primary audience, as a move in the wrong direction.
To your other question: yes, I do occasionally call women hot, both on and off this blog. People online seem to go berserk about it, but from 95% of experiences in real life, and several personal testimonials, women usually like being called hot. Yes, one needs to focus on the intellectual side of women sometimes, but isn't that what I did in my most recent post.
This also is a matter of honesty. It has been established that many women, if not most, like being called hot. Why not do this? Men, including me, see it as very positive when women are attractive. I am just being light-hearted in complementing women in such a way. We guys cannot pretend we do not care how women look. And how bad can this be, anyway? I do not call specific ladies hot if I believe there is a chance they will be offended by it.
In sum, how bad can what I did possibly be by any scale? If you want a laundry list of strengths that women have versus men, for which I esteem them, see below. Women are/have
-much more polite
-compassionate and consoling
-much less vulgar
-less into sports
-more into crafts
Also, women hang out at bars less often, have better music tastes, and are more reliably anti-war. Now, men have strengths too, but in my hatred of "battles of the sexes", I will not recite them.
Now, I'm not exactly sure what I have to do to explain that opposition to feminism does not equal less respect for women, so I will just ask anyone making that contention to prove that Phyllis Schlafly, Ann Coulter, and Colleen Hammond are anti-woman. Yes, I believe that women should obey their husbands so long as they do not make unreasonable requests or immoral demands- it doesn't sound nice, even to me, but this is simply based on how the teachings of the Bible (especially the Epistles) were interpreted for all of Christian history before the advent of 2nd wave feminism- the definitive Catechism of the Council of Trent was clear on this. The opposing views I see so many espousing with regards to this teaching are grounded in either relativism (adapting the Scriptural interpretations to allow for popularly-demanded revisions in the distinct roles of the sexes) or in modernism (the view that traditional gender roles are for some reason outdated). For this reason, and also because of the collapse of the family and the rise in cohabitation since these roles were popularly abandoned, I believe it would be better in general(as a friend pointed out, there are exceptions, based on necessity and on the occasional praised working woman of the Bible) if men were again the breadwinners and women reared and educated the children in families.
You are a babbling neanderthal.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home