Final Decadence of Neolibertarianism Attained
Dale Franks ends an interminable whine about the indignity the white race has suffered in the Imus case with
Finally, let’s talk about the children. This week—starting today, in fact—is the 18th annual Imus radiothon to raise money for Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, and to help support the Imus Ranch, which offers children, 10% of whom are African-American, with cancer and blood-borne diseases a few weeks every year of vacation and treatment, free of charge.
Yesterday, MSNBC dropped the Imus show, which has run every morning for the 11 years of MSNBCs existence. Today, CBS dropped Imus in the Morning from the radio lineup, effective immediately. Naturally, this means that Mr. Imus will not be able to raise money during the radiothon, which will lead to a precipitous drop in donations. So, in effect, NBC and CBS decided that it would be better for children to die than for Don Imus to broadcast for another day or two. Think about that, too. Getting rid of Don Imus and escaping the controversy is so important to NBC and CBS that they are willing to kill children to do it.
I think “sensible,” “practical,” “constructive” GOP-allied “libertarianism” has finally reached rock bottom, along with the bloated corpse of the 1990s Right generally. I hadn’t thought there was lower to sink after the Right spent six years replicating every trope of “political correctness” in its demonizing of every criticism of neoconservativism as antisemitic. But if avowed libertarians and professed conservatives used to believe in anything, it was that the cheapest trick in political argument was accusing your opponent of hating kids because he didn’t support your viewpoint. But, like the saying goes, It’s OK if you are a Republican.
Via OTB.
Comment by sglover —
April 13, 2007 @ 11:26 pm
Hilarious! But help a statist out — what exactly is “neolibertarianism”?
Trackback by Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator —
April 14, 2007 @ 12:43 am
CBS fires shock jock Don Imus…
CBS fired Don Imus from his radio program Thursday, the finale to a stunning fall for one of the nat…
Comment by michael holloway —
April 14, 2007 @ 12:46 am
“..insensitive as it might’ve been…”.
I don’t think it was insensitive at all, if fact, it was a refreshing moment of candour in and around an incredibly sensitive topic. I’m his age, I know what he was saying – he should explain himself – if he can gain his senses in time – as the media bomb has dropped.
He was trying to get down with (talk honestly to) their whole rap thing (music preference); and by the way, all you ’squares’, we’re All Ho’s bro!
yo.
Comment by Leonard —
April 14, 2007 @ 1:05 am
Neolibertarianism is war-friendly “libertarianism”. I know, an oxymoron: war is the health of the state. War or liberty; pick one.
But Dale Franks doesn’t know. If you read the article there where he lays it out, it sounds like on domestic policy he’s solid. But… when you lay down with warmongering dogs… you get fleas.
Hearing him, no, hearing any self-avowed libertarian reduced to “it’s for the children” breaks my heart.
Comment by Walt —
April 14, 2007 @ 1:16 am
My God is that Dale Franks excerpt funny.
Comment by Mona —
April 14, 2007 @ 8:25 am
That is where he derailed and went over the mountain’s edge. And I otherwise agree with much that he said. The problem, as I see it, is the hypocrisy over there.
They’ve had many a thread about the purported racism of the “left,” and when Jane Hamsher depicted Joe Lieberman in blackface McQ went off on an indignant rant, and in comments I set forth my conviction that what she did was not racist — she simply violated the PC protocols on what and who may say this or that about race. But nope, no, Mona was just defending Jane cuz Mona now suposedly loves Democrats.
When I pointed out that Lee Atwater admitted to exploiting racism as a GOP political strategy, well, they were having none of that, either.
I don’t think what Imus said is racist. He’s a geezer who doesn’t know the rules of usage, anymore than (more surprising, becasue she is younger and sophisticated) Hamsher did.
But whatever, if QandO thinks Hamsher and so many leftwigners are suffering awfully from racism, then what are they doing arguing, of all putrid things, “it’s for the children” in defense of Imus? They should be celebrating that the left is, at long last — cuz typically the left has loved racism you know — started to disapprove.
Comment by Derek Copold —
April 14, 2007 @ 11:28 am
The bit about the kids is a bit much, but Franks makes a good point about “Snoop Dogg” not facing any serious social disapproval for drug and weapons charges while Imus is bundled off to satellite radio.
Comment by Gsnorgathon —
April 14, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
Yeah, it is a good point. Why don’t all the politicians and journalists who are guests on Snoop’s network radio show start a boycott?
Comment by Derek Copold —
April 14, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
I don’t know about his radio show, but why should Orbitz, Chrysler and every other sponsor feel comfortable giving this guy mainstream credibility?
Comment by Gsnorgathon —
April 14, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
I dunno. Maybe because they don’t care? Part of the difference being that (so far as I know) they also don’t go on tsk-tsking about ‘civility’ and suchlike.
.
The other part of the difference being that Imus’s enablers don’t care either, except when it suits them.
Comment by Derek Copold —
April 14, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
Maybe because they don’t care?
That’s right. They don’t care. Because in this fucked up society, you can lose your job and have your reputation ruined over a thoughtless comment–on a radio show dedicated to thoughtless comments– (and god forbid you apologize for it, because that’ll just make it worse). But if you commit the crimes that SD has, violent crimes, you get fat contracts and corporate sponsors.
Comment by Gsnorgathon —
April 14, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
LOL, Derek – committing crimes and getting fat contracts and corporate sponsors is a way of life for a big chunk of the world (cf. the Bush administration). Will you only be happy when justice is wrought from the top down? I’d be happier if things worked out that way, but all too often, they don’t – or don’t for the reasons I’d prefer (see Thoreau’s next post on “What does it take to get fired?”).
Comment by Derek Copold —
April 14, 2007 @ 2:21 pm
My standards aren’t that high. I would like to see some proportionality, though.
Comment by Walt —
April 14, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
But what reputation does Snoop Dogg have? Outside his music fans (which is a small slice of the population) he’s a big joke. Imus is a much more influential figure.
Comment by Mona —
April 14, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
Mmm. No. Lots of people know who Snoop Dog is who never heard of Imus. Snoop Dog directly influences what is socially acceptable and may be said/sung among the under-30 crowd — Imus is old and weird. Hip youngsters are FAR more likely to take what SD says as acceptable over Imus, if they’ve even heard of the latter, which is doubtful.
Comment by Dale Franks —
April 14, 2007 @ 6:14 pm
*sigh*
Because, you idiot, its a satrirical way of illustrating the hypocrisy of “it’s for the children…” when it conflicts with the pieties of political correctness.
Comment by Mona —
April 14, 2007 @ 6:24 pm
Ohhhhhh!
Comment by Jim Henley —
April 15, 2007 @ 7:35 am
Interesting that it completely fails as satire. Partly that’s because there’s so much stupid stuff preceding it that the reader has no reason to impute intelligence – or even a rough kind of sly intent – to the one part at the end. But probably more because it assumes what you want to prove – that the sort of people who think there’s something really wrong with this specific incident must be incapable of arranging manifold values in a hierarchy because – well, they just must. Also because your crowd has spent so much of the last six years perpetrating tu quoque fallacies that, what’s unusual about this one?
Comment by Eric Martin —
April 15, 2007 @ 9:47 am
But if you commit the crimes that SD has, violent crimes
Has Snoop actually been convicted of committing violent crimes?
Either way, though, I think using someone like Snoop as a corporate spokesman is poor judgment at the least. The misogyny advocated by Snoop on a regular basis should be enough to make him an unwise choice.
Comment by Bruce Baugh —
April 15, 2007 @ 11:50 am
It just occurred to me that my approach to the question of Imus vs. Snoop Dogg is the same as my approach to the question of the US’s human rights record vs. that of other nations, and for the same reason. I’m not black. Nor am I a gee-I-wish-I-were-black self-loather or trend-follower who consumes a lot of products pitched to black markets. I have no leverage in the marketplace for products intended for black consumers or their advertisers. Now, I don’t listen to talk radio either, but I do consume products advertised there and I’m part of a targeted demographic. So it makes sense for me to use the leverage I have, and let others deal with situations where I have no social force, only the threat of political force.
Comment by bago —
April 15, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
Doesn’t saying “for the children” have the same effect on a libertarian as a cross to a vampire?