“What a Maroon” Watch

Bugs Bunny: “What a maroon!” (maroon: BBs unique pronunciation of moron)

Headline: “Netherlands Braces for ‘jihad'” (Notice that the Washinton Times puts jihad in scare quotes [sigh] )

“We are not going to tolerate this. We are going to ratchet up the fight against this sort of terrorism.” [emphasis added]
–Deputy Prime Minister Gerrit Zalm of the Netherlands, after the murder of Theo van Gogh and attendant death threats by Islamic jihadists on the life of a Netherlander lawmaker. (link here )

[sort, n. A category of things distinguished by some common characteristic or quality ]

So, my question to this maroon is this: if “this sort of terrorism” is unacceptable and you plan to “ratchet up the fight against” it, what are the sorts of terrorism you do not feel it’s necessary to fight, what sorts of terrorism are acceptable to you?

What a maroon.

Stupid People in “The Stupid Party”

Validation of the “Stupid Party” label long attached to the Republican Party—by Republican Party faithful. The response to the event that spawned this headline and the accompanying report just about defines stupidity.

“Vandals Hit GOP Headquarters in N.Carolina”

And what’s the response from Kevin Howell, communications director for the state Republican Party?

“The people who did this are sick…”

No, dummy, they are not sick, they are criminals. Sick people may be treated, perhaps cured. Criminals require punishment. Punishment severe enough to convince them to modify their behavior. And the proper role of civil government in cases like this is to consistently mete out punishment of sufficient severity that it discourages other criminals from perpetrating similar crimes.

When so-called “communications directors” of the stupid party buy into the lies of the “Evil Party” about human nature, crime and punishment and the role of civil government, then it simply cedes authority to the opponents of civilization.

It is comments like this (and policies reflecting this mindset) that remind me of what R. L. Dabney (19th century Reformed theologian, officer on R.E. Lee’s general staff) said about conservatism in that century:

“Its history is that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at least in the innovation. It is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward to perdition”

Emphasis obviously added…