John Derbyshire popped his breakers and posted an article so ugly, Rich Lowry posted the response at National Review:
His latest provocation, in a webzine, lurches from the politically incorrect to the nasty and indefensible. We never would have published it, but the main reason that people noticed it is that it is by a National Review writer. Derb is effectively using our name to get more oxygen for views with which we’d never associate ourselves otherwise. So there has to be a parting of the ways. Derb has long danced around the line on these issues, but this column is so outlandish it constitutes a kind of letter of resignation. It’s a free country, and Derb can write whatever he wants, wherever he wants. Just not in the pages of NR or NRO, or as someone associated with NR any longer.
Damn straight. Good and right thinking people regardless of politics see this for what it is: Unacceptable. NR makes their position clear, and as usual do a great job of speaking for conservatism.
I’m a squirrel. I read Derbs item, but still don’t know what the hell to think of it. It goes from detached sociologist to full on paranoid quack. The premises are eyebrow raising and the recommendations are simply too similar to some crackpot with delusions of societal collapse. It certainly made me uncomfortable. As a Christian however it is unconscionable.
Exit question: Think MSNBC will be parting with Al Sharpton any time soon?
[Added:] Josh Trevino tweets: I like being in a movement that has moral standards and enforces them. This almost never happens on the left.