THE WEAKLY STANDARD

Dear Readers:

Today I will address a number of topics. I’m never sure of what they will be, but here goes.

Yes, Les, it is a “major stretch,” so let’s go with 98.6% the person described in the article you refer to. Regarding classifying what was written “as a work of fiction,” that depends on the reader and to what degree they can contextualize what they read. I guess when one sets the wheels in motion that “trigger our memories,” like your kind gesture in sending along the CD, the recollections that follow can’t be predicted. For me, my recent obsession with blogging has put me on a constant hunt for things to write about. Delwin’s story, while sad and gruesome, is probably more interesting to read about than a discussion of our good times playing music. While that might make for a nostalgic e-mail exchange, most readers would probably have a “who cares” response. Would that I had that rare and genteel sense of humor that offends no one, as in your gore/Al Gore joke/comment.

I found it a little surprising that you thought the second anonymous comment was directed at you. I certainly don’t think your disputing the dismemberment implication was a defense or apology for Delwin’s actions. I also think her comment was meant for me, and I think I know what she meant. The way her sentence was written, however, suggests that what I/we didn’t “notice,” because we are men, is that he was ”ill.” What I think she really meant, is that “as men,” we would be less sensitive, if not completely oblivious to his misogynistic nature, and she’s probably right on the second count; but this isn’t because we would ignore it if we saw it, as much as it was that we rarely saw Delwin in situations where his attitudes about gender would be in evidence. Because the Dr. Jekyll side restricted its beastliness to the private realm, behind closed doors with the women he knew, and by all accounts this behavior manifested itself in all of his close relationships with women, there was no way we could know that side of him. Given your gentility and sensitivity, and notwithstanding my macho tendencies, I can say unequivocally that neither one of us would have tolerated or condoned this kind of behavior, nor would we have overlooked this for the sake of furthering any sort of musical collaboration. We all knew the guy was nuts (who isn’t), but not in this insidious and tragic way.

Speaking of nuts, I assume they only let William Kristol out of the psych ward on Mondays, that way he can go to his New York Times office and produce the drivel that masquerades as serious journalism. What next, a Rush Limbaugh column? Kristol has the temerity, the unmitigated gall, to chastise Barak Obama on his assessment of why attracting small town, working class voters to his cause is a difficult task. The quote he cites is this: “It’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment to explain their frustrations.”

The problem here is that Kristol makes the assumption that having guns is a good thing, religious bigotry and intolerance is an inalienable American right, and that rabid xenophobia is a noble quality. Fact is, Obama is right. It’s no accident that 70% of the public, of which a vast majority are “small town and working class” are bitter and frustrated. They made a huge mistake in voting Bush into office, and so, like Kristol, don’t want to hear that they are complicit in creating the sad state of affairs they now find themselves in. The truth hurts, and Obama speaks truth to power. It’s easier to hate on illegal wetbacks than to demand that Bush be held accountable for our situation. It’s easier to lament having our AK47 taken away from us than to consider the outrageous levels of gun violence in our society. And finally, it’s easier to hide behind the skirt of our God than to extend our understanding to other peoples and deities.

Since guilt by association is Kristol’s stock in trade, he links Obama’s ideas with Karl Marx. It’s no accident that he, chuckle, chuckle, mentions his “spending a little time once again with the old Communist.” I suppose he thinks that by painting Obama with the Communist brush, he can resurrect old phobias about the “Red Menace” and the “Godless” threat it poses to our Rockwell Nation (but does he mean Norman or George Lincoln?).

Given the intractable folly of the current administration, it’s not surprising that Kristol finds having the “intellectual pedigree” of a German thinker as incompatible with the political philosophy of an “American presidential candidate.”

The most ridiculous quote from Kristol’s column, and there are many, is this: “If he [Obama] were a war hero, if he had a career of remarkable civic achievement or public service—then he could perhaps be excused an unattractive but in a sense understandable hauteur.”

If we juxtapose this assessment of Obama with the quality of leadership now being displayed by our president and vice-president, we can only hope that Kristol’s “mask slips” some more, since it’s painfully obvious that it has no eyeholes.

Best - Randy