Please tell me it’s true…

Peggy Noonan declares the Dems liberated from the Clintons, thanks to the ridiculous lie about the Bosnia visit. Dear Lord, tell me it’s true.

If the Democrats really are stepping up to cast off these demons, it’s PARTY TIME! If making up crap until you get called out on it is no longer the left’s modus operandi, I need to rethink my allegiances. Let’s dig up Ed Muskie and Hubert H and suit them up… I’m feeling very BLUE!

(If you read nothing else in Peggy Noonan’s piece, do not miss the GI Joe satire at the end of it. Priceless!)

3 Responses to “Please tell me it’s true…”

  1. jim walsh Says:

    Though I am far from averse to frank and robust exchange of views (,
    I want to call attention to the careful, modest, and respectful tone of the contributions the founder (“onlie begetter”) of this blog sends.

    I commend them as a model for what others write, even — or especially — those who contribute anonymously.

  2. Timothy Peach Says:


    My goal is to add some zest to this site to increase attendance. That is, of course, not an end in itself, and I fully admit my toes get out over the end of the board on occasion. However, if the desire is to have this site be something more than an incredibly well hidden forum for debating the merits of Grey Poupon over hollandaise, some level of compromise in terms of the passion and partisanship in posts will need to be “tolerated”, if not explicitly encouraged. It also wouldn’t hurt for it to be a little more fun.

    The level of subtlety and sophistication of this site is foreboding, as evidenced by the fact that only a handful of (admittedly sagacious) people ever show up here. I’ve invited “smart” friends here, who may well bring a dash of bile with them but all in the name of the free circulation of ideas, but every one of to date has tasted the fare and passed, generally on the grounds of boredom.

    Ultimately, it’s up to our beloved founder exactly what he wants this site to be. Despite knowing my proclivities, he invited me to start posting on this site — a decision he may well be rueing, and one which he could easily reverse with a few mouse clicks. He has yet to chastise my recent quasi-impish offerings, but perhaps that’s just because he’s too busy to slap me back.

    I have great respect for you personally, and the document you linked is well-crafted and certainly bespeaks openness with civility. I do, however, find a bit of irony in your referencing it, and perhaps it goes to the substance of my stance here. Georgetown, my Alma Mater, is an institution which has largely abandoned its Catholic tradition and now most closely resembles a corporation. Once a moral lighthouse for young adults, it now in the most cowardly fashion champions “diversity” and “freedom of opinion” at the expense of integrity by doing such things as providing a subsidized forum to those who would explain to the school’s impressionable distaff charges that it is perfectly acceptable for them to forcibly jettison their unborn offspring should their arrival be at all inconvenient.

    These decisions have made Georgetown a “hot school”, with a bulging endowment and many of the country’s best young minds vying for acceptance. From my perspective, however, the University is a disgrace; my 17-year-old son is now looking at colleges and Georgetown, I can tell you, is decidedly not on the list. He doesn’t need an education in how to obfuscate the abandonment of Catholic principles.

    If this were my site, I would be more interested in stirring up trouble and creating rousing debates about important issues of the day, with due but not excessive attention to civility. As Aristotle pointed out, the temperate man gets angry when there’s something worth being mad about. And for me, abortion on demand and the toxic chicanery of the US political left are two such issues.

    I would also want a robust and vibrant forum. Any such forum is going to need a critical mass of participants, and to get that, you have to be more tolerant around the edges on style. Not without limits, of course, but with the greater goal in mind.

    You have rebuked me quite gently and I want to acknowledge that and thank you for it. If it had been me rebuking me, “shut up” may have been my approach, perhaps with a couple choice words sprinkled in the middle. I do agree that those inclined to convey passion or to try to be funny should do it in a reasonably civil manner.

    Again, with genuine respect,

  3. Mark Grannis Says:

    I feel I should address three points above.

    First, Tim, you continue to be welcome here. You are one of the most intelligent people I have ever met and you care passionately about the highest things. You are also, sometimes, a jerk, but that doesn’t really set you apart from most other people and in any event I don’t choose to dwell on it.

    Second, your thoughts on Catholic identity at Georgetown and other Catholic institutions would probably make for an extremely interesting post all their own. I can’t do justice to such a large topic here, but let me just say by way of general orientation to my point of view that if it weren’t for Georgetown you might be discussing Catholic identity today but it wouldn’t be with me. I am Catholic because of Georgetown, and because of the spiritual and intellectual formation I received while rubbing shoulders with the likes of both you and Father Walsh. There were voices then who criticized Georgetown for not being Catholic enough — dwelling, for example, on the fact that undergradates were only 60% Catholic and that daily Mass attendance was no longer required — but I can tell you for certain that I would never have attended the place that the Uber-Catholics then wanted Georgetown to be. I trust the same is true for students entering today. So go ahead and say, if you want to, that the school no longer fulfills its mission; but if you say that, I think you are saying that it is no part of a Catholic university’s mission to produce graduates like me. I will not be offended if that’s your position, but I do respectfully disagree.

    Finally, as for the type of discourse we ought to have on the site, I find it difficult to improve on the principles laid down in Fr. Walsh’s preamble to the University policy on freedom of expression. I have intended for some time to adapt them to the blogosphere, and that now strikes me as all the more worthwhile. But for now, the two points that I feel an urge to make quickly are (a) that I’m certainly willing to be, as you say, “tolerant around the edges on style,” but also (b) please don’t do us any favors by trying to be self-consciously provocative in order to “increase attendance.” If I wanted to go to a popular site, it would be a lot easier to hang out at an established blog, some of which are already very good. What I’m interested in is disagreement — like we have here — resolved civilly in a way that leaves everyone a little smarter — which I hope is what we also have here.

    Thoughts from other readers?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: