Monday, October 1, 2007

A Few Reasons not to Give to NRO

At National Review Online's The Corner, fatuous one-line content-free poster extraordinaire Kathryn Jean Lopez posted the following:

A Few Reasons to Give to NRO [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Victor Davis Hanson.

Ramesh Ponnuru.

Jay Nordlinger.

John Derbyshire.

And they're just from today, and just a few of today's NRO offerings.

Consider making an investment in more of the above and more. Donate to NRO now.
Let's see.

Victor Davis Hanson: Thinks that "Americans believe that freedom and consensual government — far from being the exclusive domain of the West — are ideals central to the human condition and the shared aspirations of all born into this world" and that these values are "the same principles for which Americans died at Valley Forge, Gettysburg, Iwo Jima, and Pusan." Also routinely bloviates against "fundamentalism," a word most commonly used by secularists to refer to any sincere, orthodox religious belief.

Ramesh Ponnuru: Criticized social conservatives' rhetoric against homosexuality as "spiteful, harsh, and obsessive" in an article arguing that homosexual "marriage" is inevitable.

Jay Nordlinger: Wrote that George W. Bush is a "Rushmore-level President" and that if history doesn't bear that out, "history will be wrong." Also that "I have a deep fondness — love, really — for the man, though I don't know him."

John Derbyshire: A nihilistic atheist who thinks that an individual human life has no purpose. When discussing religion, he routinely writes such sneering sentences as "All religious faith, after all, depends on magical thinking. To people who eschew such thinking—people who prefer to ground their beliefs in the strict rules of evidence used in modern law and science—Mohammed’s flying through the air to Jerusalem on a white steed is no more preposterous than the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception." Thinks that Playboy is conservative.

Does a principled conservative need any more reasons not to donate to NRO?

1 comment:

Mansizedtarget.com said...

I don't expect to agree with everything I read there, but it is a far cry from the NR of the Sixties, which you should pick up some time when you're at a large library. Back then the phrase Christendom appeared with some frequency, as did frank discussions of the merits of segregation on the basis of Burkean principles.