[VANITY] Anyone else not receive National Review this week?

14 February 2004 | MegaSilver

[MegaSilver]

Normally, I would have gotten it sometime early this week. I haven't. I did get an unsolicited copy of the Claremont Review of Books, which has a lot of stuff from NR writers (not that I minded; it was a good read).

I could just log on to NRO and read the issue there, but I like having the 'zine in front of me to read (since I read so much on the internet). Anyone else have this problem--or is it just me?

[billhilly]

I didn't.

[jocon307]

The kid is getting some complimentary youth subscription it seems, it arrived this week, the one with Kerry on the cover.

So far they haven't asked for $, but when they do, it's theirs. For her, not me, but it'll carry me through until she leaves for college. (Please Lord may she go!)

I hope she is getting this because they got hold of the mailing list for the complimentary sub. to TIME (rag of rags for 35 years at least) that she got due to taking the Princeton Review SAT course. Anyway, she's a big righty and a poor reader, but as a mom, I will keep getting it for her.

I hope your copy arrives soonest!

[DoctorMichael]

Yes, I received mine (the Kerry cover).

"...I could just log on to NRO and read the issue there..."

I've found that while they put alot of stuff online, some of their major and longer articles are abbreviated versions on the website. Nonetheless, I TOO prefer holding printed pages in front of me. "E-Books" never did really catch on; there is something special about holding the written word that is more than mere habit.

[Alter Kaker]

I did not receive the National Review. This was not a surprise since I am not subscriber.

[woofie]

I didnt get mine last week, or the week before that, or the week before that ...I never get it in fact

[GeronL]

LOL!

[nygoose]

I also rec'd the Claremont Review. Not sure whether I got NR.

[BCrago66]

You can subscribe to the digital edition online. I do - then I don't worry about the reliability of the US Mail.

[Revolting cat!]

I didn't. Didn't receive it the week before. Or the week before that! Something's up!

[Burkeman1]

I haven't subscribed to that phoney conservative magazine in years. But when I did- the customer service was the worst. I missed issues many times and try changing your address with those clowns! They didn't care and seems they still don't. But what would you expect from a mag that has an editor ego maniacal enough to title his book "An End to Evil"?

[MegaSilver]

I haven't subscribed to that phoney conservative magazine in years.

What exactly do you have against NR?

[Burkeman1]

Where do I begin? It's embrace of "Big Government Conservatism", it's peace making with the homosexual movement, it's continued love of foreign adventures, it's defense of the current level of Federalism, and the hiring of even pro abortion editors. They are beltway. I read every issue in my School library every other week as if it were mind candy- I couldn't wait for each issue! My liberal parents got me my first subsciption to NR. I was Alex Keaton of the Sitcom "family ties"!

What is NR to me now? Nothing but Beltway swill. They exist to preserve the status quo. They "hate" Kerry? Yeah right. What will Kerry do that Bush hasn't that I should fear?

[MegaSilver]

Where do I begin? It's embrace of "Big Government Conservatism", it's peace making with the homosexual movement, it's continued love of foreign adventures, it's defense of the current level of Federalism, and the hiring of even pro abortion editors. They are beltway. I read every issue in my School library every other week as if it were mind candy- I couldn't wait for each issue! My liberal parents got me my first subsciption to NR. I was Alex Keaton of the Sitcom "family ties"!

Well, I have a somewhat different impression. The issues I've read aren't afraid to criticize Bush's spending habits, attack the extravagant U.S. corporate tax rate (and blame it for helping to send companies overseas), outlining a strategy for a passable Marriage Amendment...

[zipper]

National Review is anything but "phoney". Its founding editor is no other than the great one himself, William F. Buckley. Admittedly the magazine can be a bit cryptic to those used to nothing but talk radio and television, just as Mr. Buckley's lectures tend to be. Mr. Buckley is a conservative in the tradition of Ronald Reagan-- he "played hardball when Matthews was still playing kickball".

"An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror" was written by David Frum and Richard Perle. David Frum is only one of fourteen contributing editors to the NR, not a senior editor (there are twelve) or associate editor (five) or even an editorial associate (four).

I got my issue with Kerry on the cover two days ago.

[Burkeman1]

We disagree. I read the magazine for a long time and then just coulnd't take it anymore as they continued to justify US presence abroad after the Soviets fell. Buckley's deal was that we had to embrace some "Big government" to fight the Soviet Union but once we win we will go back to being real conservatives. Well I did- National Review never did.

[MegaSilver]

We disagree. I read the magazine for a long time and then just coulnd't take it anymore as they continued to justify US presence abroad after the Soviets fell. Buckley's deal was that we had to embrace some "Big government" to fight the Soviet Union but once we win we will go back to being real conservatives. Well I did- National Review never did.

Well, you certainly have a right to your opinions. Personally, I would agree that perhaps our defense resources are stretched a bit; on the other hand, we cannot afford to abandon those nations still threatened by or recovering from the remaining Communist strains in the world.

[MegaSilver]

"An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror"

OOC, have you read that? It got a positive review in NR (not surprise), but I've heard mixed things about it.

[zipper]

Perhaps you should try The American Conservative, Pat Buchanan's magazine. Certainly he believes in isolationism (oops, he can't stand that characterization)-- I mean keeping our forces off foreign soil. I was a charter subscriber but decided that kind of thinking isn't for me (and how true it is after 911).

I prefer to agree with what the president of the  Heritage Foundation says about Buckley and the NR.

[zipper]

I think Frum and Perle are both supposed to be neocons-- at least that's what Buchanan says. Their writings have to be taken in that context.

[zipper]

I think Frum and Perle are both supposed to be neocons-- at least that's what Buchanan says. Their writings have to be taken in that context.

[Burkeman1]

I would agree with you if we were just making sure old allies were not abused in the post Communist transition. But we expanded NATO right up to Russia's borders, inserted ourselves in the Balkans, Haiti, East Timor, Uzbekistan, Khzakistan, and signed even defense deals with Viet Nam against China. We are not talking about just mopping up after the Cold War. We- or as I should really say- our bueaucracy made sure they would survive and prosper. The DOD needs "enemies". The State Department needs countries to cajoul. The military brass need reasons to justify their budgets. George Washington warned us about this! ARGHHHHHHHH! The Republic is dying!

[Burkeman1]

I read them when I pass buy a newstand that has TAC.

[MegaSilver]

I think Frum and Perle are both supposed to be neocons-- at least that's what Buchanan says. Their writings have to be taken in that context.

That word ("neoconservative") is thrown around pretty loosely these days. Do you mean, taken in the context that they advocate an overideolized, overtly aggressive foreign policy?

[zipper]

I thought you said you read The American Conservative-- do you know what a neocon is? Buchanan had practically an entire issue devoted to an attack on the "neocons". He attacks them ad nauseum. .

[MegaSilver]

I thought you said you read The American Conservative-- do you know what a neocon is? Buchanan had practically an entire issue devoted to an attack on the "neocons". He attacks them ad nauseum.

Nope--that wasn't me.

From what I understand, "neoconservative" can mean one of three things: 1. a Jewish conservative, 2. a former liberal or communist who is now conservative, or 3. a champion of a foreign policy so aggressive it would shock Barry Goldwater.

[zipper]

1. a Jewish conservative

"Even among mainstream democrats, anti-Semitism is not condemned. When Jesse Jackson used the slur, "hymie town," a single liberal did not denounce him, nor was Al Sharpton rebuked when he said he would not tolerate a Hadassah (Lieberman's wife) in the White House. And Hillary Clinton is forgiven for reportedly calling Dick Morris a "Jew bastard." The "Zionist conspiracy" is even being leveled against the Bush administration as the term "neoconservative" has resurfaced as a synonym for 'Jewish conservative.' From the radical fringe to the highest ranks of the Democratic Party, the Left claims that the Bush administration is nothing more than Israel's pawn."

                       -- Overthrow.com

[TaxRelief]

My issue arrived early in the week.

[MegaSilver]

The "Zionist conspiracy" is even being leveled against the Bush administration as the term "neoconservative" has resurfaced as a synonym for 'Jewish conservative.'

Oh. I see.

[zipper]

See where this is going? The enemies of conservatism defined the derisive term, and it is frequently used by Buchanan as a contemptuous label.

>>Origins on the left

Originally, in the context of the United States, it referred to a right-wing movement of former political leftists. As Michael Lind has observed, "Most neoconservative defense intellectuals have their roots on the left, not the right. They are products of the influential Jewish-American sector of the Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s, which morphed into anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s and 1970s and finally into a kind of militaristic and imperial right with no precedents in American culture or political history.

A Special Report issued by Foreign Policy in Focus in 2002, says that

 

"Neoconservatives constitute an intellectual current that emerged from the cold war liberalism of the Democratic Party. Unlike other elements of the conservative mainstream, neoconservatives have historical social roots in liberal and leftist politics. Disillusioned first with socialism and communism and later with new Democrats (like George McGovern) who came to dominate the Democratic Party in the 1970s, neoconservatives played a key role in boosting the New Right into political dominance in the 1980s. For the most part, neoconservativesÐwho are disproportionately Jewish and CatholicÐare not politicians but rather political analysts, activist ideologues, and scholars who have played a central role in forging the agendas of numerous right-wing think tanks, front groups, and foundations. Neoconservatives have a profound belief in America1s moral superiority, which facilitates alliances with the Christian Right and other social conservatives. But unlike either core traditionalists of American conservatism or those with isolationist tendencies, neoconservatives are committed internationalists. As they did in the 1970s, the neoconservatives were instrumental in the late 1990s in helping to fuse diverse elements of the right into a unified force based on a new agenda of U.S. supremacy."

 

-- Disinfopedia.org