Michael Reagan is VERY confused

I have been glancing at Micheal Reagan's columns over at Townhall for a while now. I haven't blogged on them, despite many disagreements with what he has to say, primarily because, well, he often doesn't say much. He is clearly a person uncomfortable with change. The theme permeates his every utterance. Changes in language bother him immensely, as evidenced by this article which amounts to "The 'F' word is bayid, mmmmkay". Michael doesn't seem to understand that it is the meaning behind the words, and not the words themselves, that matters. Let's also not let people like him who reminisce about the good ol' days forget just how much social progress has been made since then. So when he says:

"I went to a lot of concerts years ago. I never heard Frank Sinatra or any other performer use a single obscenity during their performances. Moreover, if any of them had uttered anything as foul as the 'F' word, they would have been driven off the stage.

Let's remind him that back in the "good ol days", instead of hearing "fuck" on the stage, what many heard was "get these niggers to their proper seats away from the decent white folks". Pardon us for preferring things the way they are now.

In a similar vein, Mr. Reagan gets all wonky over the Democratic youtube debate. And while there is always plenty to complain about with the substance of presidential debates, what does MR concentrate on? The Democrats supposed Marxist policies and the brave Republicans trying to protect us from that. I can see why he doesn't like change - most of his article sounds like it was written 30 years ago. But what most occupies MR's mind is the alleged connection between "the culture of Hollywood" and the debate. His primary argument? Well, it has to be seen to be believed:

"On display was the culture of Hollywood – the culture of Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan...In an era when the very survival of civilization is threatened by terrorism organized on a global scale there was not a single mention of the ongoing war on terrorism, which is costing lives every day. Instead we have a questioner dressed as a sock puppet asking about global warming. Now that’s bad enough, but what is even worse is that he was taken seriously.

No Michael, what is worse is that YOU are taken seriously. Global warming threatens to destroy the entire human race. Now that's the worst case scenario granted, but it still dwarfs any threat posed by terrorists, who, by definition lack the military power to enforce their ethos on us. However painful 9/11 and the inevitable future attacks are, they are merely political vandalism performed by people with more passion than weaponry (and often sanity). As threats go, they lag far far behind what the Nazis and Marxists posed, and global warming is far more of a threat than that.

One cannot compare political reorganization to the destruction of an entire ecosystem. Perhaps Michael Reagan should stop paying so much attention to Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton, and actually read some science, or even a recent newspaper. Anyone who thinks the Democrats are Marxists and terrorists are a greater threat than global warming needs to get out more.

Also this "global" war on terror adjective needs to be nipped in it's deceptive bud. 99% of the terrorism in the world happens in a very tiny part of it, and involves very specific groups of people. A global war on terror would have battles in places like China, Austrailia, Sweden, Nigeria, and Brazil as well.

Finally, to put the nail in the coffin of my timewarp case against Mr. Reagan, consider this tasty morsel of denial:

"Democrats want big government and Republicans insist that the best government is the government that governs the least."

Oh? You talking about the Reublican party that wants to tap our phones, prevent women from having abortions, prevent scientists from doing stem cell research, support arresting medical marijuana patients conforming with state laws, and has in 6 short years of control turned the largest federal surplus in history into a deficit and debt so large that we mathematicians have to be brought in to translate the figures into something the average person can relate to. THAT Republican party? Surely you jest.

Sorry Michael, that old song won't play any more, if ever it did. You guys deride the "tax and spend" Democrats while practicing an even more damaging policy of borrow and spend. And this is coming from a former Republican that laments the lack of small government action to follow the small government rhetoric of the Republicans. You don't walk the walk, and it's time people started calling you on your big talk to the contrary.