Talk:John Derbyshire/Archive 1

Ramesh Ponnuru attack on Derbyshire?

The article mentions this but the hyperlink given just links to the wikipedia article for the number 3. Can someone fix the link? Zongalt 23:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This entry is pure crap.

It goes through a lot of motions by listing political views here and there and mentioning a scant few credentials and accomplishments. The views, however, are less relevent to the man than purer biographical data. The dude was in a Bruce Lee movie! He was an illegal immigrant! He's a former Anglican; he's an Episcopalian with problems with the homosexual aspects and his politics regarding homosexuality are quite technical.

These views can be important but they're irrelevent until we learn and list the man's experiences and achievements.

That's the truth. We shouldn't be worrying about anything where biases are relevent until we mention what the hell the guy has done.

He's pissed off Andrew Sullivan? Who gives a shit? Andrew Sullivan, as famous as he is among bloggers, is not a standard for anything. (As nebulous as his stances are, he's certainly not a standard for anything). Sullivan's only consistent belief is that his boy-bed-buddy should be legally recognized as such. <-- What a nice homophobic thing to say... Why is Sullivan's partner only his bed-buddy to you? Why are you so obsessed with gay sex? Why can't you just acknowledge that two men or two women can love each other and want to spend their lives together, and not have it be just about sex? You are so shallow and dense!

yippee ki yay biases

If any conservatives want to make this page less biased by adding pro-derbyshire stuff, they're more than welcome to. Right now it's pretty one-sided. Dave 19:00, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I hate this guy, so I'm probably not the one to balance this, but it needs it. I put up a POV banner to encourage ya'all to defend this guy. Dave 20:32, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Good work, Guardian. I think if we add a bit to his political views other than "we should kick prisoners" or "we should shoot more journalists," it'll be neutral, or at least neutral-ish. Dave 00:35, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Does anybody have the same problem with the line "This would be understandable considering the typical or traditional Anglophobia of many papers and journals in many large American cities." that I have? This is a pretty unsubstantiated claim and should probably be deleted.

Taking Down the Sign

I added a bit on China and ID theory, and fixed up the math stuff. I think it's at least neutral-ish now. Since no one but me has made an issue out of POV in the article, I think I can take down the sign now that I'm more or less satisfied with its neutrality. If anyone else thinks it's still biased against him, I encourage you to edit it. Dave (talk)

NPOV is tricky with this guy

Derbyshire has moved well to the left in his views lately, which has gotten him lots of grief from fellow NRO writers. I added a couple sentences and a link to show how harsh the criticism has gotten.

Derbyshire's contributions to NRO have grown few and far between. He rarely blogs any more, and when he does, he's careful to avoid controversy. If anything, you'd think the left would start defending the guy, because he's looking like a convert. Casey Abell 16:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Added a few more examples of Derbyshire's increasingly leftish views in the initial paragraphs. The article's emphasis on the Derbyshire-Sullivan spat is starting to look dated. Derbyshire has written very little in the past few months that Sullivan would disagree with. Much more interesting lately have been Derbyshire's disagreements with other NRO writers and with many of the site's readers.

Derbyshire keeps giving me more evidence of his move to the left. He just posted a long article on NRO that ridiculed Bush's tax cuts in language that might as well have been borrowed from Teddy Kennedy, and which expressed deep pessimism about conservatism in general as a viable political philosophy.

Really, Derbyshire could comfortably move over to the liberal wing of The New Republic, if not for his undying opposition to Hispanic immigration. He once identified himself as a racist and a homophobe (albeit a "mild and tolerant" one). He seems to have pretty much abandoned the homophobia. At least he doesn't write about it much any more. If he could get past his dislike of Hispanic immigration, he'd be right at home on the left side of the political spectrum. Casey Abell 16:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really a Derbyshire expert (I stopped reading him because of the homophobic bile he spits out) but I'd be surprised if he really moved that far left. Do you want to provide a couple articles by him that illustrate your point? I'd be interested in reading them. Dave (talk) 16:37, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

The article where he ridicules Bush's tax cuts and reads the last rites for conservatism is on NRO right now. The front page of the site calls it "Conservatism is on its deathbed." I'll admit that he puts the kiss of death on conservatism with a more-in-sorrow-than-glee approach, but I don't know why. He opposes any changes in that ultimate big-government program, Social Security. He writes some boilerplate against generalized "government spending" but he sure doesn't want any trims in his Social Security check. He calls himself a conservative, but so many of his positions differ substantially from most of the writers on NRO, as the wikipedia article points out. Oh, he does have some kind words for gun rights, but that's hardly unknown among liberal politicians.

The article reflects his undying dislike for Hispanic immigrants, which is probably the last major barrier to his joining the left. No comments on homosexuality, which he seems to have largely abandoned as a topic.

I tend to look at specific issues to judge a member of the chattering class. Derbyshire has taken left-wing views on most recent controversies: Iraq (immediate U.S. withdrawal), Social Security (no market reforms, no changes at all), Terri Schiavo (cut off food and water right now), tax cuts (inconsequential and too onerous for future generations), abortion (pro-choice, albeit "moderately," whatever that means). After a while, I have to think his protestations that he's a conservative ring hollow. Certainly a lot of other writers on NRO have been questioning his positions in sometimes very harsh language. Casey Abell 18:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Having just read some of his stuff, I have to disagree. this article is a pretty standard conservative attack on "diversity" types and affirmative action, Also, this recent article on homosexuality says that while he's willint to "tolerate" homosexuality and doesn't want to ban it, he thinks it's "a social negative" that suggests "that normal heterosexual pairing, the bedrock institution of all societies, is merely one of a number of possible, and equally moral, "lifestyles," and thereby devaluing that pairing — perhaps, on the evidence from Scandinavia presented by our own Stanley Kurtz on this site, fatally. Male homosexuality is also the source of public-health problems (and was so even before the rise of AIDS)" and that he opposes gay marriage "I don't think that every minor inconvenience consequent on being a member of a minority should be raised to the level of an intolerable injustice requiring drastic legislative or judicial remedy. We all have to put up with some inconveniences arising from our particular natures."

In the article you cite, he's clear in his opposition to communitm, his opposition to government intrusion into education, his opposition to Title IX and the Americans with Disabilities Act, and so on. I was unable to find anything about social security, but I think there are conservative arguments against privatization that he could use.

On Iraq, he wants to remove the troops for conservative reasons--he doesn't care about the Egyptians or the Iraqis and he says so explicitly. His arguments have more in common with Pat Buchannan's than Michael Moore's. Not all conservatives wanted the government to intervene in Terri Schiavo's case. See Culture of Life for a few examples. Opposing tax cuts as "too onerous for future generations" is perfectly reasonable for a conservative to say--conservatives still complain about budget deficits, but (unlike under clinton) are unwilling to do anything about them.

I guess the short version is that I'm unconvinced that he's all that liberal.

Dave (talk) 19:26, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Well, okay, you can say that Derbyshire takes every left-wing position "for conservative reasons." That hasn't stopped conservatives on NRO from disagreeing with him sharply. No other writer on the site has been the target of the kind of language from fellow NRO writers that I referenced in the article. He got similarly strong, though less harshly worded, disagreements on his views about Iraq and Social Security. Even his views about homosexuality, which he rarely discusses any more and which I think you overemphasize, are expressed in much more centrist language than before.

Anyway, the article is a balanced treatment of his views, pointing out his many recent differences with other NRO writers.

BTW, just noticed on the NRO Corner that Derbyshire is taking shots for his latest article from none other than his boss, Rich Lowry. Social Security is one of the main complaints, Derbyshire's less than respectful attitude towards the religious right is another item, his whole last-rites-for-conservatism argument is a third irritant. At least the language is civil. But it seems like Derbyshire can't publish anything on the site without getting bashed by other NRO writers.

Lowry was one of the NRO writers who clobbered Derbyshire the hardest over his call for immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. I'm starting to wonder about Derbyshire's future at the site. When the boss keeps pounding on you publicly, maybe a message is being delivered.

Derbyshire continues to take his lumps for his column on the death of conservatism. Another NRO writer, Peter Robinson, accuses Derbyshire of "a misleading half-truth and a straightforward error" in his discussion of Reagan and the religious right.

Derbyshire is scrambling to prove his conservative bona fides in the wake of all the attacks on him from other NRO folks, not to mention many conservatives among the site's readership. According to Derbyshire himself, many readers are calling him a libertarian (on social issues like religion, I assume) and a socialist (probably on economic issues like Social Security and tax cuts). That's not surprising considering the leftward drift in his views.

He's trying to use humor to defuse the situation, calling himself a "dubiregulobiocon." Casey Abell 19:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Derbyshire keeps getting himself in trouble at NRO. The combative John Podhoretz, new to the NRO Corner, is really ripping into the naturalized Brit. Podhoretz' latest: "TO SUM UP, THEN...Mr. Derbyshire a) blames the administration for not being serious about nuclear proliferation, b) expects a pullout from Iraq and a civil war, c) is happy Michael Jackson has been acquitted and d) supports euthenasia.

"What magazine's website is this again?"

Podhoretz has also suggested that Derbyshire should have voted for Kerry. Given Derbyshire's leftward drift, there's merit to that idea.

Nobody at NRO is defending Derbyshire as one writer after another rips him. My guess is that his job at the site is, let's say, strictly term-limited. Casey Abell 04:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just saw that the Cornerites have taken notice of Derbyshire's entry on Wikipedia. In particular, they've seen how the article has tracked Derbyshire's increasingly harsh disagreements with other NRO writers. Derbyshire's reaction was sour: "WIKIPEDIA...is a crock. Anyone can put anything up there. Someone with more time, money and patience (and thinner skin) that I have, should sue the bejasus out of them."

Don't know how Derbyshire could sue over this article. As far as I can see, the article is accurate and well-sourced. If there are errors, he can correct the article himself.

Derbyshire may live long and prosper at NRO. But it's not going to be an easy ride as long as he plays "Dissident Derb." At least Warren Bell, one of the easiest-going writers on the site, praised Derbyshire for mowing his own lawn. Even dissidents need a little love. Personal disclaimer: my teenage son mows our lawn. Casey Abell 14:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Dissident Derb" continues to get bashed by his bosses at NRO. After today's London bombings, when other Cornerites were lauding the Brits for responding calmly and forthrightly, Derbyshire wrote that the British were a bunch of wimps who would like Osama bin Laden to "be riding around in a chauffered limousine ten years from now, and having tea with the Queen." This was too much for NRO editor Kathryn Lopez, who posted the following:

"London was attacked today and a little rally and optimism along with sound policy advice is called for. I, for one, am not going to be end-of-the-worldy. Cliff made a good point for us Yanks, this morning, too. Maybe we're doing something right.

"Anyway, the quick antidote to Derb for our British friends: Red, white and blue What does it mean to you? Surely you're proud Shout it loud Britons awake! The Empire too We can depend on you. Freedom remains These are the chains Nothing can break.

"There'll always be an England And England shall be free."

At least she still called him "Derb" instead of the more brusque "Derbyshire." But I have to wonder what else might be included in that "quick antidote to Derb." He certainly keeps rubbing his bosses the wrong way. Casey Abell 7 July 2005 16:39 (UTC)

It's a weird kind of fun to follow Derbyshire's twists and turns on the NRO Corner. He posted a note a few days ago that expressed his usual pessimism, only this time in end-of-the-world terms: "The West is done for...We are doomed, doomed." This may have been partly tongue-in-cheek, but it prompted a reply from Rick Brookhiser that began: "What drivel."

Brookhiser isn't technically one of Derbyshire's bosses, but he's a longtime writer for National Review who commands a lot of respect from other people at the magazine. I think Derbyshire senses that he may have gone a little too far in ticking off important people, because he's now returned to his old gig of decrying Hispanic immigration.

This is one of the last of his right-wing views, and it's not likely to get him in trouble with the magazine's bosses or most of the NRO site's readership. He'll have to put up with criticism from fellow Cornerite John Podhoretz, but that's not too ominous. Casey Abell 13:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Derbyshire's twists and turns on the NRO Corner are getting downright necksnapping. Today Derbyshire was attacked, once more, by his boss Rich Lowry over Iraq and Derbyshire's call for immediate U.S. withdrawal.

Only now Derbyshire doesn't seem to be calling for U.S. withdrawal any more. He appears to have jumped to exactly the opposite view: "If we've got a war to fight, let's fight it, the way we fought all the wars we were victorious in. Let's not kid ourselves that we can slip away from the fight, leaving it to others...If there's a job to be done, let's do it ourselves."

By the way, I edited out an irrelevant swipe at, you guessed it, Hispanic immigrants. Derbyshire has been squeezing those attacks into lots of posts lately, whether they're relevant to the subject or not. He probably believes that those attacks might earn him some brownie points with the NRO brass and readership, who have been less than enthusiastic about many of his opinions lately. Casey Abell 14:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Rich Lowry, Deryshire's long-suffering boss, has again attacked the British import for his, let's say, flexible position on Iraq. (Maybe Lowry's been reading Wikipedia.) Derbyshire has bounced all over the place on the issue. He's called for immediate U.S. withdrawal, he's called for a "fighting retreat," he wants a U.S. hunt for every jihadi in sight. How all of these positions can coexist isn't clear. Maybe Derbyshire will bounce back with yet another idea. But he keeps having to explain himself to the boss. Casey Abell 19:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Derbyshire's position on Iraq has tumbled into complete incoherence. In response to the challenge from his boss, Rich Lowry, Derbyshire posted a long, rambling, incredibly contradictory "meditation" (what else could you call it?) on the Iraq war. Lowry's answer was understandably bewildered:

"VERY CONFUSED Hi Derb, I'm genuinely confused now about whether you want to pullout of Iraq or stay and kill every jihadi on our own. I printed your post out and carefully read it to try to figure it out. Can you please advise very briefly? Sorry to bother you with this--but now I'm very curious..."

Lowry may well think the same as I do: Derbyshire is trying to have it every which way on Iraq. After all the grief he's taken from other NRO writers, I can't blame Derbyshire for wanting to smooth over differences...and Lowry probably can't blame him, either.

I'm going to leave the comment in the article that Derbyshire called for an immediate pullout from Iraq...because, after all, he did write that. But I'll admit that his current position on Iraq, if he has one, is incredibly murky. Casey Abell 13:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I wish I could say that Derbyshire has clarified his Iraq position, but he keeps getting more obscure and self-contradictory. He just posted another long, rambling, nearly incoherent essay that began:

"Yes, I want to pull out of Iraq.

"Yes, I want to kill jihadis everywhere we can find them, certainly including Iraq."

Exactly how we're supposed to kill jihadis in Iraq and pull out of Iraq at the same time is not clear. Do we pull out of the country and then start launching cruise missiles or nukes or spitballs from a safe distance and hope they hit jihadis? Derbyshire doesn't clarify. He only says: "I believe and hope" there are ways to kill jihadis in the Middle East without having anti-jihadi local governments in place or American troops on the ground. He doesn't specify those ways.

I'll be cynical. I think Derbyshire wants out of Iraq right now, regardless of the effects on jiahdis or anybody else. That position looks weak and appeasing to other NRO writers and many of the site's readers. So to look tougher, Derbyshire is tossing around some macho talk about killing jihadis...without offering any coherent plan for doing so.

At any rate, he still appears to want an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, so I'll keep the article as is. Casey Abell 18:16, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Rich Lowry has fired back, calling Derbyshire's position on Iraq a "muddle" and "silly" because of the inherent contradictions I mentioned above. To quote Lowry's challenge:

"So how are you going to kill all these jihadis that you want so dead when you leave Iraq? With some of your super-duper covert raids? My problem with your cold-blooded realism on Iraq is that it is not the least bit realistic. On Iraq you are a pessimistic fantast. The pessimism is fine. It may even be proven right in the end--no one can know at this point. It's the little fantasies--a pullout right after the election, a fighting retreat, all the rest of your muddle--that are silly.

"The problem you have is that you don't care what happens in Iraq, but you want all jihadis dead. But what happens in Iraq will impact how many jihadis end up dead. A pro-jihadi government of the sort that has a greater chance of coming about if we leave precipitously will not kill those jihadis you want dead. In fact, it will provide a haven for them. Are you going to re-invade Iraq to go kill them all? Then leave again? Maybe we can put Iraq on the six-month invasion plan.

"The obvious play here is to try to create a government that will do some of this killing for us. You don't even want to try. By the way, the language about killing all jihadis I picked up from you. We are not going to kill all jihadis in Iraq. Trying to stay until we do that would be a fantasy. What we can do, perhaps, is help foster a decent government that can stand up to them."

He ends by asking Derbyshire a blunt question: does he favor an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq? If Derbyshire answers yes, I'll leave the article alone. If Derbyshire answers no, I'll amend the article to reflect his latest views. If Derbyshire muddies the waters again - maybe the most likely scenario - I'll leave the article alone until Derbyshire's position clarifies. Whenever that may be. Casey Abell 21:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Derbyshire has confirmed that he wants an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. So I'll leave the article as is. This call for immediate withdrawal fits in with Derbyshire's general drift toward left-wing positions. Lowry has fired back that Derbyshire should then junk the tough talk about killing jihadis because the ex-Brit wants to give them havens by cutting and running from Iraq and the Middle East in general. Lowry's parting shot: "You [Derbyshire] also need to stop saying you favor killing all jihadis in Iraq. You don't in any real sense--in fact, you are happy to give them a safe haven." Casey Abell 17:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The shoutfest with his boss has clearly drawn blood, judging from Derbyshire's post-battle summation. He admits that a high percentage of his e-mail from NRO readers (either 40% or 50%) says he got waxed.

In a way I can sympathize with Derbyshire, though I'm no fan of his views on immigration. On most issues he's clearly moving well to the left of other NRO writers and probably most of the site's readership. He's tried to disguise that move with he-man talk about killing terrorists and political correctness, etc.

But nobody really seems fooled any more, certainly not his bosses. I'm sure Derbyshire doesn't want to lose his NRO gig. It's a lot more reliable source of income than books that try to popularize math. But if he keeps disagreeing with conservatives on almost every major issue - playing "Dissident Derb" as other NRO writers have dubbed him - his future with the site can't help but look cloudy.

Just noticed that another contributor slightly tempered the paragraph about Derbyshire's disagreements with other NRO writers. No big deal, though I wonder how sympathetic Derbyshire can be towards small government when he absolutely rejects any market reforms or other changes in that ultimate big-government program, Social Security. Again, the more you look at specific hot-button issues, rather than generalized boilerplate rhetoric, the further to the left Derbyshire appears. Rich Lowry nailed Derbyshire on this tendency in the Iraq debate.

One more note: Lowry says his e-mail is running pretty unanimously against Derbyshire. No surprise, given that NRO is a, well, politically conservative site. Lowry also says that most readers really enjoyed the dust-up. So did I. Casey Abell 14:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

After his hiding from the boss, poor John Derbyshire has mostly retreated from NRO. He's off to see relatives in Europe and checking in only very occasionally with carefully non-political comments.

He just posted an odd column where he announced that his house is worth more than $500,000 (with no mortgage) and his mutual funds are worth more than $600,000. And yet he pleads an odd kind of poverty, calling his money "faery gold" because somehow he can't touch it.

Huh? He could sell his house now, buy a better one with a $200,000 down payment on the mortgage, and do what he wants with the $300,000 left over. Derbyshire is suspicious of mortgages for some reason, but that's only his silliness. He could turn his house into plenty of real gold, real money almost immediately...and still have a better house to live in.

He could also cash in the mutual funds, pay the 15% capital gains tax (and an additional 10% penalty if they're 401-K retirement funds) and have at least $400,000 in real money left over.

In other words, poor-mouthing John could turn his investments and house into at least $700,000 in green money plus a better house. This is faery gold?

Not that I'm advising Derbyshire to sell anything, although he could easily afford a better house if not for his horror of a mortgage. But his complaints about faery gold are silly. Casey Abell 12:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, dear, Derbyshire's gotten in more trouble with his bosses. This time he's irritated Kathryn Lopez with his offhand dissing of the unborn as not "actual sentient human beings." The particular issue was embryonic stem-cell research, which Derbyshire claims not to care about one way or the other. But the comment fits in with his pro-choice stance on abortion, which he's never been shy about expressing on the NRO Corner.

But that stance also irritates NRO editor Lopez, a pro-lifer to end all pro-lifers, in the worst way imaginable. She took time off from Hurricane Katrina blogging to snap: "I really don't want to do this today, Derb, but it seems by your masked-as-a-throwaway response there you have clearly picked a side even if you haven't given the topic enough thought. We disagree, but I rather an issue some of us think crucial to our culture not be cast aside so dismissively."

Derbyshire made some cooing noises in an attempt to placate Lopez. I doubt she's all that placated.

Derbyshire recently published a message from a reader that questioned whether he was really a conservative. That e-mailer must not have been reading the Corner much lately. Derbyshire just posted a reply that he's been "kicked off the conservative reservation." Of course, he kicked himself off that reservation a long time ago, as the Wikipedia article recounts.

The one area where Derbyshire remains unmistakably right-wing concerns race-related issues. That explains, among other things, his distaste for Hispanic immigrants, or "the hordes of Central Americans pouring into our country" as he described them.

Or as he just posted on another race-related topic: "Likewise, much of the very exciting work now being done in the human sciences -- areas like genomics & neuroscience -- is completely ignored by our policy makers for political reasons. That's how we end up with gibberish like the No Child Left Behind Act."

This is about as close as he usually gets to an outright discussion of his thoughts on race and intelligence. (You don't have to be very alert to understand which ethnic groups Derbyshire thinks would tend to be left behind in intellectual contests.) Elsewhere, he has rather casually identified himself as a racist, though he's been careful enough not to do so on the NRO Corner.

But once the issue gets away from race, Derbyshire generally heads left. And he gets on his bosses' nerves in the process. Casey Abell 19:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

John Podhoretz has developed into one of Derbyshire's most reliable combatants on the NRO Corner. Podhoretz recently posted an item on the Corner attacking blogger Steve Sailer, who generally shares Derbyshire's views on racial issues. Predictably, Derbyshire came to Sailer's defense, and Podhoretz sprang the trap:

"Derb, you really really REALLY don't want to defend the presumption that "better educated" (i.e., white and Asian) people have better "native" judgment than black people, do you? NATIVE judgment? And I think you'd better check with [fellow NRO writer] Roger Clegg before you associate him with such noxious views."

Upon which Derbyshire said nothing. I think he senses that his bosses, already tired of his attacks on conservative orthodoxy, would not relish an explicit discussion of his views on racial issues. NRO editor Kathryn Lopez even posted a nervous joke about distributing flak jackets to NRO writers. Casey Abell 12:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Derbyshire finally did reply to Podhoretz' shot...sort of. Derbyshire has just posted that he doesn't want to get into the Podhoretz-Sailer fight. (Uh-huh.) He then gently jabbed Podhoretz for borrowing a little of Sailer's style and substance. Podhoretz' reply was unequivocal and provocative:

"ANSWER FOR DERB No. I stopped reading Steve Sailer when he started writing for vdare.com, which I consider a white supremacist site. I have read only two things by him in the past few years, both of them e-mailed to me, and I regret having soiled my eyes, my brain and my sensibility with them. And if anything I wrote today sounds anything like Steve Sailer, then I'm ashamed of myself."

Maybe Podhoretz, never shy of a fight, is trying to provoke an open debate on race with Derbyshire. This has always been the simmering undercurrent of their disputes over Hispanic immigration. We'll see if a full-scale argument breaks out.

Interestingly, such a debate might be the way for Derbyshire to re-establish his battered right-wing bona fides with NRO's writers and readers. So, who knows, maybe he'll take the bait. Casey Abell 19:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Derbyshire didn't take the bait to get into an open free-for-all about his racial views. He did post a long, rather rambling item that stated: "Evolution, including brain evolution, did not proceed in precisely the same direction, at precisely the same rate, in every human group, in every region and environment."

This is about as close as he'll get to a blunt statement of his views on race and intelligence, which agree closely with Steve Sailer's, the guy Podhoretz has trashed on the NRO Corner. Derbyshire's post then wandered on to a scattershot discussion of "blank slatism" and intelligent design and other esoteric issues.

Derbyshire hasn't posted much on hot political issues lately. He's probably wary of getting his bosses and NRO readers riled up. Again, once the issue gets away from race, Derbyshire tends to go much further left than the typical NRO writer or reader. Casey Abell 13:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

In fact, Derbyshire hasn't posted much of anything on NRO lately. He's now staying off the Corner almost entirely and has posted only one "article" this month. That article was mostly an excerpt from FEMA diversity-speak. Derbyshire probably thinks that an implied attack on diversity will earn him some points with NRO's readership. At least they won't send nasty e-mails over his views on Iraq or Michael Jackson.

Don't know if Derbyshire is busy with other writing or just lying low after all the recent dustups. Casey Abell 20:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Derbyshire finally did publish something substantial on NRO: a slavishly (I'm tempted to say mawkishly) enthusiastic review of...Bob Dylan!? He sprinkles in verbiage that sounds like it was culled from the gooiest liberal chatter: "Watching the footage of him and Pete Seeger singing their songs in a field crowded with civil-rights people and black southerners, you got a flavor of the idealism and, yes, patriotism that carried the movement along."

Derbyshire is heading left even on race-related issues? Egads. Well, he does temper the gooiness a little by saying that Dylan really wasn't so political: "Dylan, in any case, though he could see the injustice — anyone with eyes could see it — and felt what his peers felt, was never much interested in politics, except as a source for lyrics. Dylan was, and is, all music, all through."

Still, when Derbyshire starts talking about the injustices borne by southern blacks, you gotta wonder what's next. A job with The New Republic?

By the way, I edited out a few recent additions to the article - dealing with Derbyshire's disagreements with other NRO writers - which made explicit statements of political opinion. NPOV would suggest that such statements be confined to the discussion page, while the article remains as neutral as possible.

I left in the unsourced speculation by Robert Sieger (frankly don't know who he is or what his qualifications are) about Derbyshire's initial attraction to NRO. Seems a little far-fetched to me, but the phrasing looks hedged enough to pass NPOV muster.

I also left in the speculation that Derbyshire may be ending his association with NRO. I've written about this myself, but only on the discussion page. I think the language in the article is hedged and conditional enough not to give offense to NPOV. There's certainly evidence that Derbyshire isn't contributing nearly as much to NRO as before.

At any rate, whatever fan base he may still have at NRO will probably not be real thrilled with misty-eyed tributes to Pete Seeger's patriotism. Casey Abell 12:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Something you might want to know about his immediate withdrawl from Iraq - He just wanted us to go in, smash it up, and leave. I dont think that you can nit pick his policy on that. Yes, he wants to withdraw from Iraq right now, but he never wanted any occupation - he just wanted to stop Saddam from having WMDs and he figured the best way was to kill him and destroy his capacity to make them - which would include knocking out all infrastructure in the country which is something we definitly did not do (think Dresden).

Lots of NRO writers - most notably, his boss Rich Lowry - have found plenty to "nit pick" about Derbyshire's call for immediate withdrawal from Iraq. But I won't rehash all their arguments. Check above.

Derbyshire just posted a "September Diary" where he trashes Bush and pledges allegiance to the Old Left. I still think he should just move over to The New Republic, which certainly qualifies as Old Left. Just don't tell them about the racism thing.

And now I'm going to conclude my Derbyshire watch. I'm getting a warning that this discussion page is too big, and it is. My guess is that Derbyshire walks out or gets kicked out of National Review before too long. Maybe he'll start a blog with Steve Sailer. I could even see him winding up on a site like vdare.com. But his racism (his own word, not mine) and his continual attacks on conservative orthodoxy and the religious right will probably end his association with National Review sooner or later. Casey Abell 13:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Derbil the Gerbil

Why do you keep removing the truth, that John is known as Derbil the Gerbil?

Neocons are attacking again!