My latest op-ed is at The Washington Examiner, considering the rather serious implications of a Trump nomination for the conservative movement. Not just its recent incarnation, but the entire postwar conservative intellectual project. My co-author, David Frisk, is biographer of William A. Rusher, Bill Buckley’s longtime partner at National Review.
Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category
Once upon a cliff most dreary
Came a Congress o so weary
To avert the cliff financial
Fearing fiscal failure, leery
Of the voters searing, fearing, nearly tearing urgent wrath.
Enter Simpson, of Wyoming
In his Gangnam Youtube Styling
Dancing, with petitions mounting
Frustrated with Tea Party pouting
With Erskine Bowles he did the counting
Counting, counting, evermore!
The cliff! The cliff! Can be averted
If only reason be asserted
Not taken, taken, and perverted
By forces far of left and right
Who throw about frustrated might
Would delve us in to bankrupt night!
Of rates and loopholes much is made
The cause of compromise may fade
Unless good Simpson, Gangnam style
Undoes the gridlock with a smile
Reminding those in both high bodies
Their need to break with rank and file.
Simpson, Bowles, now resurrected?
Their reforms not first effected
But strangely now back from the dead
Parties both see what’s ahead
Rejecting pledges, statements sore
Raising rates an option, and what’s more?
The cliff it is still looming, looming
El Rushbo, still a’fuming, fuming
Frothing at John Boehner’s door
But this cliff need not be dooming
Looming at John Boehner’s door
Simpson’s path may guide you o’er.
Quoth the Norquist, nevermore?
On its face, the sentence makes little sense. What is the difference between “man” and “mankind”?
But no one seemed to care. “One small step for man” it was, and likely ever will be. Armstrong is said to have preferred putting the “a” in parenthases. The Associated Press, in its obituary, went with brackets.
“That’s one small step for [a] man; one giant leap for mankind.”
What does it means to re-frame a message? This is as clear an explanation as any…
In the first version the appeal is to charity alone, devoid of context. In the second there is an example of why charity is justified — an illustration that warrants the appeal, and without naming it explicitly.