Classical Values :: Patient answers As I

Patient answers As I

Patient answers

As I earlier vowed that I would endeavor to address my errors fully, I think I should answer a criticism of me by another blogger. I want to be fair, so here is his critique of me, in full:

NO STRANGERS -- JUST LUNATICS I HAVEN'T MET YET. The Ole Perfesser links to this story at something called Classical Values. Oh God, I said when I first spied the masthead, please let it be a joke. Alas, it wasn't. The proprietior is a gay guy who spends most of his Lawrence v. Texas post talking about how great states' rights are. Elsewhere he states: "My life has been largely wasted opposing fanaticism. This does not mean I have no opinions."
Oh boy, does he! The aforementioned post seriously claims (and I mean seriously -- I ran the Ironometer over it several times and came up with nothing) that Michael Savage is an agent provocateur set up by the Left to discredit conservatives. (He doesn't mention how Fox got in on the scheme, though.)

He also tells us how he was pulled out the depths of despair by G. Gordon Liddy.

Well, there's my horizon expansion for the day.

I am glad to expand anyone's horizon, and I really don't mind being called a lunatic (I even call myself a nut), but I think this guy misrepresents my views on states rights. In the post which so upsets Mr. Edroso, I criticized conservatives for their double standard on states rights:

[they're] all for states rights when a state is trying to take away freedom, but let that same state dare attempt to expand freedom (as in the case of liberalized marijuana laws), and they'll goose step all over everyone in the name of federal supremacy.

Hardly a ringing endorsement of states rights. But then I explained my own position:

I like states rights. I just don't think that an expansive reading of the doctrine should give any government -- state, federal or local -- the right to force me to go to the back of the bus, or to force open the door to my bedroom.

For this pitifully weak endorsement, I am accused of spending "most of [my] Lawrence v. Texas post talking about how great states' rights are"?

While I thank Mr. Edroso for crediting me with the honor, I think conservatives who champion states rights can find a better spokesman than me.

The poor man obviously fails to see my humor. Not only doesn't he appreciate the tongue-in-cheek aspect of the "Classical Values" blog name, but he didn't bother to read my sarcastic aside about states rights in a hypothetical case against Jesus Christ:

shouldn't it be up to the states to punish such things as healing on the Sabbath, wandering or strolling from place to place without apparent business, or aiding and abetting accused prostitutes?

I am new, but I am learning. I had thought the satire in the above was quite obvious. Obviously, I didn't make it obvious enough.

Obviously, I'll have to work on being more obvious.

One Edroso complaint has me baffled completely. I am charged with not mentioning a crucial piece of evidence:

"how Fox got in on the scheme."

He's right, of course. I missed that completely. How did Fox get in on the Savage scheme?

Last I looked, Savage's show was syndicated from KSFO (a Disney-owned station), and he also worked for MSNBC, which just fired him. His syndicated show is carried on hundreds of stations around the country. How Fox? How MSNBC? How the hell am I to know? Am I supposed to ask each station? Please tell me, someone, how did Fox get into this scheme? I thought they only hired real conservatives. Were they duped? Am I helping to cover up for Fox? Does this mean Savage is an honest conservative after all? I need to know!

Either I suck as a fact finder or I'm not the only lunatic patient in the blog asylum.

More patients needed?