From the Comments

Well, things are getting back to normal business (and busy-ness) after the long holiday break. But my blogging schedule has been thrown off. I'm going to try to get my New Year's hiking post up this morning or early afternoon. But I've got a dental appointment at 11:00, and I've got to get my little guy ready for school right now. I haven't even read the paper yet, or checked the headlines at Memeorandum or RealClearPolitics.

I did see the comments some readers have left at the blog, anonymous comments, or pseudonymous in the case of the second one. The first one's attacking me for my alleged hypocrisy:

If u are married with children - do you think it is appropriate to go around talking about how hot other women are all the time? Your blog is full of drooling over how hot women on TV are. Why don't you stop fawning over actors and fake celebrities and pay more attention to reality. Where are your "Christian" morals? Or are you just a typical male hypocrite, a common politician , another talking head on TV preaching how others should live their lives?

The second one is from "Suzie Q," which is the nom de plume of a paleocon reader who spews the same old neo-isolationist (anti-American) talking points as Daniel Larison and the airheads over at Conservative Heritage. I'd bet Suzie Q is in fact a sockpuppet for one of the writers there, Old Rebel, or just could be some spineless lurker who likes taking pot shots from the shadows. In any case, here's Suzie Q's remark (in response to this post):

Donald, thank you for quoting me and beginning a discussion on the matter. I sincerely believe you've been brainwashed. I think you're wonderful on many fronts, but all anyone has to do is say, "Al Qaeda!" and it's like Pavlov ringing the bell. Neocons salivate and say, "Grow the Government! Give up our liberties! It's for 'freedom'!" Uh-huh. Right. Ummmmm... please slow down and re-evaluate the logic. The Patriot Act preserves no liberty - and provides security for the Government against conservatives, patriots, veterans, pro-lifers, and anyone who doesn't agree with statism. The Patriot Act really isn't "about" protecting us from "Al Qaeda". The Patriot Act is about statists gaining power over... conservatives. (And I'm still waiting for conservatives to stop salivating and taking the bait every time statists say, "Al Qaeda!") You see, Donald, it's a matter of PRINCIPLE. The Bill of Rights cannot be "negotiable" in the threat of a "terrorist" - or like Hitler found necessity to propagandize to create the Jew as an object of fear... the statists today find necessity to propagandaize to create "Al Qaeda" as an object of fear. SS - DHS... same difference... same pattern... same program... and I pray conservatives wake up before the knock comes to their door. Love ya, Donald, but what's it going to take to "just say no" to the DHS??

Okay, first to "anonymous." Normally anonymous comments are deleted, since I don't like responding to a non-entity, and it's generally cowardly to attack someone while being unwilling to face them publically (although butt freak E.D. Kain's recent workplace intimidation campaign makes me much more sympathetic to serious bloggers who remain anonymous).

(1) No, I don't think it's inappropriate to "drool" over "fake" celebrities. If you don't like my fawning, don't read the blog. (2) My Christian morals are where they've always been, at the center of my being and the grounding of my goodness. And can I ask you, when have I ever attacked anyone for looking at pictures of beautiful women, or for writing movie reviews of fabulous actresses like Penélope Cruz? (Even communist Spencer Ackerman's entitled to a good cleavage shot once in a while). Being Christian hardly requires that one adopt monastic asceticism. Life is what it is, and human sexuality is God-given. The key is how I conduct my own life, and for the record, that includes marital fidelity to my wife. So again, go somewhere else if you're not happy here. Frankly, this particular attack on my "hypocrisy" is hardly the first, and wholly unoriginal. I'm indulging here since I need something to write about while drinking my coffee and while my kid's having his cereal. Check back again after my next attack on Mark Sanford, or some other cheating asshole, which will be never, since I don't generally deal with them politically. (And Tiger Woods is basically open season. If ever there was epic moral fail, he's it, and Brit Hume's absolutely right that he could use a little Christian goodness.) In any case, I'd be lying if I said I never had "lust in my heart" for another woman. The real moral key is the ability to reign it in (more on that, relatedly, here, here, and here).

Now, for Suzie Q, well, that's a little more substantive, and I imagine I'll have more to say about it later. It'd be somewhere along the lines of "The Constitution is not a suicide pact." I rarely if ever write about the Patriot Act, and in any case, the law kept us safer, and there's no gainsaying the Bush administration's efforts to keep the country secure. The fact is, Dick Cheney packs hundreds of times the moral clarity on the tip of his pinky than the entire Obama administration combined.

In any case, Suzie Q and her ilk are civil libertarian absolutists. By attacking any and all exertions of forward American power they join in with the nihilist leftists out to destroy the nation. That's why I can't stand either of them. We have real threats facing this country. We'll have more Fort Hoods and Flight 253s, precisely because we're so paralyzed with actually mobilizing the nation to prevent them. And Obama's hardly alone in this. See, "The West is Choked by Fear."