« Yankee news | Main | tonight on fox! »

crawling skin

It's something I say every day to myself as I read The Corner and now it's something I am going to say out loud.

John Derbyshire makes me sick. Literally, he makes my stomach turn.

Can't elaborate right now. But Arthur can.

Comments

Have to agree. I like some of the NRO people (Goldberg and Nordlinger in particular), but Derbyshire is just awful.

Derb rules! Silber drools!

http://www.olimu.com/WebJournalism/Texts/Commentary/YuletideGay.htm

Derbyshire's definitely a low-quality human being. It's a shame that the National Review actually gives him a forum to speak in; it's one of the reasons I can never bring myself to subscribe to that magazine.

It was mostly because of Stanley Kurtz that I had to stop reading The Corner. Jonah seems like a decent fellow, but the animosity towards gays over there just became too much. It's sad when you agree with people on so many things and then find that at heart they can't stomach who you are.

Derbyshire is for my money the best columnist on NR right now, and one of the best in the country - a humorous and insightful commentator on foreign policy, mathematics, China, and a host of other topics.

None of this does him any good of course, when he crosses one of the pet issues of the gay mafia.

Derbyshire is expressing entirely justified outrage at the gay hijacking of his denomination, which happens to be mine as well. He doesn't hate gays. His final comments on the old time illegalisation of gay sex are over the top, but understandable in the context of his anger over the Robinson election. Anything who thinks he's a bigot has no sense of humor and can't read without blinders on.

On his worst day Derb is worth 100 of the ranting Arthur.

I frequently link to this blog fronm Instapundit, and I usually enjoy reading it.

But you're off base on this one.

Oh, I'm part of the gay mafia, am I? Hope I get my card in the mail soon.

As for being off base, no. I'm not. Because it's my opinion. I didn't Derbyshire is a hack. I didn't say he's stupid. I merely said he turns my stomach, which he does.

Derb has made it clear over the last two years or so of his writing for NRO that he hates gays more than he loves religion, so for him to attack gays for ruining his church is absurd on its face. He should leave the church, forswear religion, and become the idiotarian Mencken he was always meant to be.

Geez, a guy makes one little observation about how the queers are getting too uppity, and maybe we should have laws against consentual sex acts to keep the homos in their place, and the gay mafia just goes nuts (no pun intended). What's the world coming (again, no pun intended) to?

/sarcasm

If you want a hilarious satire on Mr. Derbyshire, go here: http://ilyka.journalspace.com/?entryid=61

Shorter Derbyshire: Give me a baseball bat, a pickup truck, and a case of Lone Star, and I'll show those lousy faggots who's boss of the Episcopal Church. For Jesus.

I dunno Michelle. You seem like you have your head on straight. Also with that you seem to be a realist. I don't care what gay people do. I do however think that there are places they cannot go and hearts that will not accept and how they live. I am just trying to be realistic here... Am I nuts or is there some way we can make every American accept and celebrate gay behavior in their hearts and minds?

While Derbyshire has written columns on other matters that I find interesting and even insightful, I find his writings on the matter of gay people (and he writes about them a lot for a man who seems to be disgusted by them, or at least their private activities) to be distasteful. He seems to have some sort of problem with them, that's for sure.

By the way, Norbizness -- Derbyshire, despite the fact that he lives here, is British. I find it difficult to imagine him doing anything with a baseball bat and a pickup truck, "for Jesus" or otherwise.

I'll note that some of Derbyshire's comments on immigration, immigrants, and race are no better than his comments on gays.

Not that he doesn't have at least one good quote to his name ("Wherever there is a jackboot stomping on a human face there will be a well-heeled Western liberal to explain that the face does, after all, enjoy free health care and 100 percent literacy.")

But a guy can be a good writer on some issues, and yet remain a bigot.

Andrea: Strangely enough, I was aware of his Britishness. I was speaking more of the thinly veiled subtext to his increasingly bitter and bizarre "Corner" posts.

Michele described a visceral reaction. There's really no way to argue with that. It's her reaction. You can't say feelings are right or wrong. They just are.

OK, therapy session over.

I'm not surprised by the reaction of her or many here. It's the spirit of the age; no judgments, except of course to pin the term "bigot" on anyone who upholds a traditional moral code.

Note: Derbyshire was a British citizen but he's now a naturalized American citizen.

It used to be part of the "traditional moral code" that African-Americans weren't allowed to marry whites, or Jews allowed to stay in certain hotels.

Ah, the Good Old Days!

Dark Avenger: Such insight ...

I think Lileks nailed the real story today when he noted that the issue is not that the bishop candidate is gay, but that he left his family to get laid. The issue is extra-marital sex. Why should a heterosexual with a live-in-lover be restricted from a bishopric when a homosexual with a live-in-lover is upheld as a paragon of virtue? Is it is just because marriage is unavailable to the homosexual? Then bring on gay marriage, and then the issue can become clearer.

I don't agree with everything Derbyshire says, and Stanley Kurtz really needs to write about something else for a change. But the best thing for me to come out of this debate is the way it is so vital and nuanced on the right, while the left marches in lockstep. The left's conception of the right's debate about what to do with gays is likely "Do we hang 'em or burn 'em at the stake?" I find the fact that you and Sullivan and Goldberg and Kurtz and Derbyshire can all debate this issue for real, with no PC flinching, to be quite heartening.

I do however think that there are places they cannot go and hearts that will not accept and how they live. I am just trying to be realistic here...

Strangely, my Sunday School teachers always focused on how the early Christian martyrs had helped to teach by example, showing that the appropriate response to people who hate you was to love and forgive them, but to keep doing what was right, even at the cost of your own life. "They should have realized they'd get crucified, and stayed home, and kept quiet, and pretended to worship Isis or something" was, to my recollection, not one of the lessons I was taught.

Take away the homophobia though, and you have... a very dull, self-centered commentator. Honestly, I don't know what people see in him. When he's not using laughably stereotypical canards about one or another group he objects to, he's droning on about how back in his day, things were different; and kids these days, how 'bout them? I get the idea he's retained to satisfy the "doddering old fart" contingent, peering through bifocals at their NR while cursing the waitstaff for bringing lukewarm soup.