The author of the biblical book of Proverbs, for example, had no problem calling a fool a fool. If all such authorial displays are unhealthy, than much of the Bible is really, really bad for us.

I liked being prideful, cynical and irritable. It’s just who I was (and, most importantly, it made for good blog posts on my old blog)

While the kind of writing described in Veronica’s post is entertaining, I don’t know that it’s healthy for either the writer or the audience.

You should read what Christopher Buckley wrote about his father in National Review after he passed away. It will indeed convince you that WFB was driven in everything not just in his opinions (the “Captain Crunch” nick name about WFP will have you laughing). WFB was a very humorous man and had a creative side as a father that Az would appreciate. The other thing you will learn is that he was a very gracious man in his interactions with people who did not share his beliefs. Gracious and “omnicompetence”. It’s easy to miss the graciousness in his responses to readers trying to pull his chain.

I do not classify Rush in the same league with WFB. While both advocate conservative positions, Rush is a populist and an entertainer first. Are you sure about wife #3? I thought he as on wife #2. I could be behind the times in Afghanistan

Having been a subscriber (on and off) to NR over the last 20 years, NR is a much better read than any of the opinion journals on the left. It generally provides facts over shrill attacks on their political opponents so I’d question your comments about the “the next article might be a political screed listing and attacking the beliefs of unquoted -ists and -isms, full of straw man arguments tendentious enough to make my eyes bleed.” In 20 years I didn’t find very many articles I’d put in that category (I know we draw a different line in the political sand). I am sure some did fall into that category, but NR generally took the high road in the political debate between the right and left.

It is silly to acknowledge irrational positions as being worthy of debate. WFB’s “Firing Line” debate series punched numerous holes in many of those irrational ideas that the left likes to float. Today the left’s lies keeps Rush a well paid member of the entertainment “talk-radio” business.

brother

It (the willingness to concede that the other side just might have some validity) leads to more thoughtful discussion and less ranting. And good heavens, we could all use less ranting.

I can’t read or listen to pundits. They’re so willing to follow their argument to illogical ends. Even if you know they must know that their argument breaks down at some point, they aren’t willing to concede it, ever. And it makes me nuts.

I know what you mean about the confidence though. I sometimes wish I had the ability to just put it out there and not worry about what people were going to say to or about me as a result. I don’t like having to defend my opinions. It’s not that I don’t have the confidence in my knowledge, it’s more that it’s just plain old upsetting. I’m thin-skinned.

Signing the responses with the calm “Cordially,” just makes them funnier to me somehow.

And I don’t think either of them was putting on “just” a show, but there is a certain lightness to their demeanor (can writing have a demeanor) that makes me able to take the potential insufferablity with a grain of salt.

AND, I don’t have to live with either, eh?