Netflix listens
Radical Son, by David Horowitz


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

To me, it's more interesting that Dreher is blogging again

Oh, I didn't mean I think Crisis is *interesting*. :-) Well, yeah, some of it is, but mostly I was just curious about what was going on--the way it changed so abruptly, then went on that extended break.

I meant to mention Dreher's new blog to you. Can't remember now how I came across it but I remembered you had recently said you had enjoyed his old one a lot. There is something very unappealing visually to me about the American Conservative. It seems a bit of a struggle to read it, somehow. Maybe just my eyes.

Just looked at it again. Good grief. There are EIGHT posts there dated today, and they must average 1000 words each. Now I remember why I had to quit reading his blog before--I felt tense just scanning it. A lot of it looks interesting but I don't have time to read that much stuff. Moreover, so much of it is at such a high emotional pitch of alarm and outrage.

I had never looked into the American Conservative before. It is not my cup of tea. I can see what you mean about the visuals. I still think an article such as this is worth braving the visuals for

I was reading something on there a few weeks ago, and thinking "this is quite good, why don't I read this magazine more often?" Then I realized it was because I find it uncomfortable to my eyes somehow. I'm looking at that piece you link to and trying to figure out what bothers me. For one thing, the stark dark-blue-to-white contrast. For another, the pale typeface. Well, my eyes are not young...

I'll have to wait till later to read this, but I will.

I don't like the blue to white either.

It's not that it's unattractive, although I don't especially like it, but that it does something to my eyes.

Anyway, I agree with Dreher on that. I think any attempt to deal with human beings en masse and uniformly is always going to be unfair to some. That's why I'm really averse to big ideological proposals. Unfortunately though, in a large complex modern society, it seems impossible to avoid dealing with people bureaucratically sometimes. Some won't get the help they genuinely need, some will abuse the help they got by cheating.

from the Dreher post:
And yet this is why he doesn’t have sympathy for failed strivers. He busted his ass and pulled himself out of poverty, so why can’t others? (is his thought).

I know someone like this online and it is really really aggravating!!! In part, b/c in that context I'm one of the "poor people" who hasn't yet managed to pull myself up by the bootstraps.

So, in that post, David made really good choices which added to his natural abilities (and I'd guess a choleric temperament, which is not a sympathetic one), but others could have made similar choices and still not succeeded much b/c of less talent and differing temperament. Cholerics! (I "hate" them!)

I so sorry you hate me.


Hmm, was about to say I didn't think of you as choleric, but that's because I had forgotten this (the comments, not the post).

It's really impossible to completely separate one's gifts from one's ability to use them--that's partly a gift, too. Me, for instance: classic underachiever. But to what extent is it my fault, on the one hand--lack of will etc.--and congenital difficulty in concentrating, in both the narrow and broad senses? Only God can finally sort it out.

Wikipedia says that cholerics have energy, ambition and passion. Well, you know I didn't have any energy even when I was young, and I certainly don't have any now. Nor do I have any ambition, if that means I want to get ahead in worldly terms. But, I am passionate about certain things--my faith, and the Church, for instance.

I think that the main way in which I am choleric is that I am a natural leader and things like this that were on another temperament website:

"You are very goal oriented, see the whole picture and organize well.
You seek practical solutions to problems and move quickly to action."

I'm pretty sure, though, that I must have taken that test on a really good day (maybe before I started working) and that if I took it today, for example, it would probably show much more melancholy.

I was amused while reading the article, though, because of the example question that you wrote about. You said that all the answers were true to some extent but mostly 1,3, and 5. I would have chosen 4 for sure, but I lean a bit toward 2 also.


I was being pretty tongue-in-cheek about the "hate"! And I will say that there are degrees of this kind of thing. The particular fellow I was describing is very admirable in lots of ways, but completely unsympathetic towards others and often very unkind. That last bit doesn't really sound like you, Janet!

There's a saying popular in left-wing circles (but not only): he was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple. (baseball analogy--does it require explanation?)

I guess "a triple" means a batter makes it to third base with his hit? Someone "born on third base" has some natural advantage he assumes he earned?

Am I right? do I get a prize?

Indeed you do. -->*PRIZE*<--

Oh thankyou so much! (been offline a few days)

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)