Middle Schooler Told to Remove American Flag from Bike

[Sarge]

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/11/12/middle-schooler/

DENAIR – 13-year-old Cody Alicea rides with an American flag on the back of his bike. He says he does this to be patriotic and to honor veterans, like his own grandfather, Robert. He’s had the flag on his bike for two months but Monday, was asked told to take it down.

A school official at Denair Middle School told Cody some students had been complaining about the flag and it was no longer allowed on school property.
[...]
Cody’s grandfather says the school was concerned about racial tensions or uprisings because of the flag. He feels if there was really a problem it should have been brought up two months ago, not during Veterans week.


The school has since backed down, as well they should, but look at the escort the kid got this week

Outstanding



[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U2hB-Pz4zs&feature=player_embedded[/media]

 

[Henry]

Yeah that's dopey.

So what's with the goofy fonts the school uses on their building? I find that offensive.

 

[Yusuf06]

With the exception of the kid with the flag, stupidity all around. Obviously the school system is being stupid for banning the kid's flag. After all, I have to wonder about their reasoning given the fact that the kids are still required to do the pledge of alliegance each morning. At least I assume they still do that anyway.

The only thing that tops the school's stupidity is the manufactured outrage on Malkin's blog.

Substitute Old Glory with a flag from Mexico, a picture of Che Guevara, or a string of condom packages and anybody who complained would be in for a “teachable moment” lecture about free speech rights and tolerance — but an American flag? That’s going too far!

In the abscence of some prior incident at this particular school, and/or with these particular administrators, speculation like that is nothing more than demagoguery. And that's being kind.

I often hear the same things from many groups that "X would or wouldn't have happened if the situation in question involved __________ (fill in the blank)." The above is equally as silly, perhaps moreso since to my knowlege, there's never been any kind of serious anti-flag sentiment in this country. Well, other than the variety far right-wing nutjobs like the Tea Party chooses to see.

 

[Yusuf06]

sorry but I fully agree with that quote. You criticize a black kid for wearing condoms on their clothes like TLC or try to stop a Mexican kid from flying a Mexican flag and you are labeled a racist. Its not really that hard to see it..the race card is now more recognizable than the American Express one. And its accepted in more places too now it seems.

So true, especially among Whites. Your post is a prime example of the type of hypothetical victimization I cited above, i.e. "If X were the case, we'd be discriminated against." It's no different than the Blacks in the D.C. area that just knew that Marion Barry wouldn't have been the subject of law enforcement scrutiny were he a White politician. It's the kind of thing I expect from people like Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson and Rush "Throw those dope fiends in jail....until it applies to me" Limbaugh. Kinda puts you in bad company I'd say.

If anything, from what I can tell the non-whites should be offended by the school system's flag ban as they were implicitly saying "The non-white kids in our school are anti-White bigots so we'd better be proactive in avoiding trouble."

 

[Alaskan]

Well, other than the variety far right-wing nutjobs like the Tea Party chooses to see.

that is nothing more than demagoguery. And that's being kind.

_________

 

[Sarge]

If anything, from what I can tell the non-whites should be offended by the school system's flag ban as they were implicitly saying "The non-white kids in our school are anti-White bigots so we'd better be proactive in avoiding trouble."

They probably don't care because I'll bet you my next paycheck that it was the illegal kids that were the ones making the complaints.

Good on someone for shining the light on this nitwittery

 

[Yusuf06]

victimization? Just because I point out FACTS dont use say stupid things to me like Im some victim even in a hypothetical sense. I was pointing out TRUE things tht have happened and the fact that people are so afraid to stand u to a person of a different color out of fear of the race card being pulled are indeed facts whether you like it or not.

as for your example...well thats just absurd and I dont even know where your train of thought was there. Im sure thats exactly what they were thinking of when they asked him to take the flag down.

What FACTS did you point out? And by "facts" I mean data from this school that show kids and/or parents have been accused of racism as you described? I saw you cite nothing of the sort. All I saw was your non-specific hypothesis that whenever one does X, s/he'll be labeled a racist. You then generalized that unproven hypothesis to the other kids in this school.

That's what I meant by hypothetical victimization. You set up a hypothetical situation that may or may not apply to this particular situation and then accepted it as proof your group has been victimized. No different IMHO than the defense by some Blacks of Marion Barry I described above. If it makes you feel any better, I got the same reaction as yours from the Black people I knew back in the day when I pointed out the holes in their argument. Again, that's no different than the nonsense that hacks like Limbaugh and Jackson make a living on.

In any event, if it's OK for you to do that, then it's equally OK for me to assume that past incidents of racism by Whites can be generalized to you and other Whites simply on the basis of your skin color, socioeconomic status, or geographic location, right? And even better, I get to pick and choose when and to whom I apply that unproven hypothesis. You are OK with that, right?

 

[Yusuf06]

_________

Well played Alaskan.

Well, sorta. I'll point out that there's a big difference between having a strong opinion based in fact and trying using fear/prejudice to manipulate the opinions of voters, i.e. demagoguery.

I'm not going to go down the Tea Party road again other than to say that whether you agree with my opinion of them or not, it is most certainly fact-based. First, they are far right wing. Second, many of them, especially at the top, are nutjobs, conspiracy theorists, and/or have bought into foolish policy ideas.

I'll assume we can agree on the first point by inspection. On the second point, I'll ask you to note that most of their ideas and rhetoric are a rehashing of Birch Society nonsense that was banished from the GOP by Bill Buckley...who BTW is the type of conservative I would consider myself to be. I'll conclude by saying "Glenn Beck". Anyone that follows him simply can't be completely sane, very bright or both. Again, even if you don't agree, at the very least I think you'd have to give me a sound basis for my opinion of them.

As for demagoguery, I find it ironic that you'd attempt to apply this label to me while ignoring the many, many instances where the Tea Party and to a certain degree the GOP used demagoguery and even outright lies to manipulate the voters and public opinion. Examples you say? OK:

The death panel nonsense
Characterizing the Dems as "socialists"
Yelling "They're going to cut your Medicare" and painting themselves as the defenders of the program based on the Dem's proposed cuts as part of the healthcare reform bill. Classic liberal demagoguery repurposed for the GOP.
Obama as Muslim
Blaming the financial collapse on the CRA
Characterization of Pelosi/Reid as communists/socialists
Obama as Nazi
Obama not American born
The need to purify the party of "RHINOs".
Demonization of bank and auto industry bailouts as "socialism"
The ACORN lies

I could go on but that's just off the top of my head.

Again, much of the above is incredibly ironic. After all, W. heard nothing but crickets from a GOP controlled congress when he proposed privatizing Social Security. Likewise, instead of trying to get rid of Medicare, that same GOP controlled congress instead voted with W. to expand it. The Tea Party is different though, right? Wrong. How many of them would have been elected had they proposed getting rid of those and other govt. programs. Ask Sharon Angle about that, or Rand Paul who as I've mentioned has already flipped. Even Michelle Bachmann has sought to redfine what an earmark is. I guess it depends on what the meaning of the word is, is.

IMHO, the worst demagoguery of all is the hypocritical variety. At the very least when the Dems do it they're being genuine in wanting to tax and spend. However the GOP, and now the Tea Partyers as well, use demagoguery to inflame emotions and paint themselves as fiscally conservative while spending as much or more as Dems and running up higher deficits.

If you don't believe me, answer the following. Who was in charge of all three branches of government when the pay-as-you-go spending rule expired? Who chose to not renew it? Hint, it wasn't the tax and spenders....or was it?

http://www.ou.edu/special/albertctr/extensions/spring2007/LeLoup.pdf
In the 1990s, Republican Congresses confronting a Democratic president were able to balance the budget. In the 2000s, Republican Congresses working with a Republican president saw fiscal discipline decline, earmarks and supplemental appropriations grow exponentially, and the deficits balloon...

...Once the budget was in surplus, Republicans appeared less interested in fiscal restraint. Congressional appropriators were under less constraint from the budget resolution, and earmarks for special state and local projects exploded. Republicans failed to extend some of the rules that had made it possible to balance the budget in the 1990s. Pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rules, requiring offsets for tax cuts or spending increases, were allowed to expire in 2002. Republican critics feared that they would lead to tax increases to pay for new programs and labeled it “tax-as-you-go.”

Sorry to be the one to tell you, but we were sold a bill of goods. I for one ain't buying it anymore.

 

[Yusuf06]

Yes, Mike the ACORN stuff was a lie. I only found out about it myself a few months ago. Yet again I was made to feel a fool for buying something like that hook, line and sinker. The interesting thing is that the media that we're always hearing described as being liberally biased seemed to be awfully quiet about it.

Despicable stuff like this is why I decided the GOP just wasn't for me anymore. IMHO, if one has to stoop to tactics like this, it speaks volumes. Mind you, that's not the only incident like that. Also, bear in mind I'm aware that the other side has at times been guilty of indiscretions as well. In my opinion, the only difference in their not thinking as big and not being as effective at it.

Like many, I used to give conservatives and the GOP a lot more credibility than the other side. In the future I will take pretty much everything I hear with a grain of salt. I'd suggest the same to you and anyone else.

 

[Sarge]

Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy!

Well played Alaskan.

As for demagoguery, I find it ironic that you'd attempt to apply this label to me while ignoring the many, many instances where the Tea Party and to a certain degree the GOP used demagoguery and even outright lies to manipulate the voters and public opinion. Examples you say? OK:

The death panel nonsense

http://nation.foxnews.com/paul-krugman/2010/11/15/nyts-krugman-suggests-death-panels-balance-budget

Per Paul Krugman, a far left wingnut that works for the NYT's. He also has the adminstrations ear

Characterizing the Dems as "socialists

–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.


Yelling "They're going to cut your Medicare" and painting themselves as the defenders of the program based on the Dem's proposed cuts as part of the healthcare reform bill. Classic liberal demagoguery repurposed for the GOP.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62J1FS20100322

(Reuters) - The sweeping healthcare overhaul the House of Representatives approved on Sunday includes about $455 billion in spending cuts for Medicare and other federal health programs over the next 10 years.

Obama as Muslim

I would say muslim sympathizer, but his dad registered him as a muslim for school


Blaming the financial collapse on the CRA

eh

Characterization of Pelosi/Reid as communists/socialists

Socialist fits. It also applies to 70 other members of the last congress

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.c...f-70-congressional-democrats-in-their-caucus/

Obama as Nazi

Pass


Obama not American born

All he has to do is show that birth certificate. Instead he had it sealed


http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13489

The need to purify the party of "RHINOs".

Indeed. It's already started, but much needs to be done


Demonization of bank and auto industry bailouts as "socialism"

No, it's just paying back his corporate backers. The same things that libs used to whine that Bush did


The ACORN lies

Those flim flam artists were caught dead to rights, but are now tryig to pull the Marion Barry, "The bitch set me up". Not to mention Obama used to work for them

Your turn

 

[Yusuf06]

Nice try J. but again, I'm not buying it.

Regarding pinning the death panel issue on Krugman, my understanding is that it originated with Mama Grizzlie. Whether that's the case or not, she certainly made it one of her big sound bites, as did the GOP/Tea Paryt.

However the core issue is not what's in question here. After all, there's nothing evil about advance directives (or even rationing IMHO). What made her characterization demagoguery is that instead of advancing the national conversation about scarce healthcare dollars being wasted on futile end of life care, she instead intentionally sought to scare people and inflame passions by referring to the language in the legislation dealing with advance directives as "death panels". Inaccurately so, I might add.

As for socialism, I have on many occasions, most recently in the post you quoted me in, pointed out that Medicare, Social Security, etc. are socialist programs. The demagoguery is not in saying so but in demonizing your opposition without pointing out the fact that you are no different, not unlike the Tea Party moron that said s/he was against socialized medicine...but leave my Medicare alone.

Until the GOP or even the Tea Party, runs on a platform of eliminating all such programs, they have zero, zilch, NO credibility to call anyone else socialist and certainly not to demonize them for it. Especially true when one considers that the last big expansion of Medicare passed with them in control of all three branches of government. Ditto that for their refusal to address Bush's call for privatization of Social Security. They were driving the bus and had the chance to do something about it and didn't. Therefore, I'd have to say that they really don't have a problem with socialism then.

As for the demonization of the bailout, it was simply the right thing to do. I was off the Bush bandwagon by that time, but I argued vehemently with folks at ES that the bailout sucked but it was our only alternative. Ditto that for Obama's auto industry bailout. Legitimate arguments about whether allowing the banks/auto companies to fail would be better or worse than the resulting unemployment is not demagoguery. Yelling "socialist government takeover" with no context, is.

And one last time, GLENN BECK!!!! I rest my case.

Anywho, I think you can see where I'm coming from on this. Having a legitimate, spirited debate about an issue is not demagoguery. In fact, that's a good thing. However, baseless and unfounded demonization of the opposition most certainly is. I'm sorry but no matter how much I may agree or disagree with the Dems on certain things, the Tea Party and the GOP have run circles around them in that category of late.

 

[Sarge]

So I post links to everything you said was "demagoged" to include death panels in their own words and the 70 card carrying socialists in the Dem congress,and you're just gonna blow it off?

Man, that Kool Aid must be some good stuff

Oh, BTW

Keith Olberman

nuff said

 

[Yusuf06]

I think you're missing my point. It's not about the position on an issue. It's about how you argue it and make your point. Think ES vs. this place. You get both sides here and there. There's just a lot less yelling and more reasoning here. It just so happens that I'm a believer that that's how issues get resolved.

I could care less if any pol is a card carrying member of any organization. In fact, I can respect them more for being open and honest about their beliefs. I've often said the same of KKK members BTW. At least I know where I stand with such a person rather than someone that demonizes others while they have done that which they demonize others for. Speaking of which, I wonder how many of them are members of the Birch Society? I don't know but I'd be willing to bet the Paul's are the only ones that might possibly have the cojones to disclose it.

As for the kool aid thing, welcome to my world. I have made a second career over the years of posting info/links to be ignored. Therefore, I think I'm entitled. Especially when I'm not the one backing the credibility of proven liars like O'Keefe and Brietbart. I suppose you still believe the their contention about the Agriculture Dept. woman that was fired for anti-white racism based on the same type of creatively edited "evidence". If so, you're no different than the diehards that backed Clinton and Barry after they were proven to be liars.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[Yusuf06]

Oh, and BTW, Olberman is a poor comparison to Beck. I don't watch him but I guess he's as far left as Beck is to the right. The difference is he doesn't have a politically active fringe movement that hangs on his every word and shows up at rallies armed. Unless Faux News and MSNBC's ratings have been faked and there's a bunch of left wing radicals having secret, unpublicized rallies with him. In other words, the average liberal knows Olberman is an extremist whereas the average Tea Partyer and perhaps some small minority of the rest of the GOP takes Beck to be a credible journalist.

Just for that though, I'm going to watch a few of his shows to see for myself. I'll try to get through a few of Beck's shows as well just for the sake of comparison.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[Alaskan]

Bill Buckley...who BTW is the type of conservative I would consider myself to be.

Oh that's rich.

 

[Elephant]

Oh, and BTW, Olberman is a poor comparison to Beck. I don't watch him but I guess he's as far left as Beck is to the right...[/i][/size]

I am not going to support Beck, so please don't bring him up. I have said it before and I'll say it again, he's a boob!

The only reason I am entering this for a brief moment is to inform you of Olberman's tactics as a journalist.

I don't know why he doesn't have a full campaign against those with whom he does not agree out in the open like Beck, although I would argue he is close with his efforts, he just lacks the audience. I have watched him from time to time so I can see what he is about if I plan to admonish him which I will do the same as Beck. They are both extremes.

What Olberman does is give money violating his Network's policies. For his actions, he has been suspended indefinitely.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...definitely-contributing-democratic-campaigns/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/05/AR2010110504496.html

 

[Alaskan]

As for socialism, I have on many occasions, most recently in the post you quoted me in, pointed out that Medicare, Social Security, etc. are socialist programs.

Actually they are not. The classic definition of socialism is ownership and control of the means of production and distribution in the community as a whole.

Social Security and Medicare are simply inter-generational wealth transfers and (in the case of social Security) part welfare program.

 

[Alaskan]

Well played Alaskan.

Well, sorta. I'll point out that there's a big difference between having a strong opinion based in fact and trying using fear/prejudice to manipulate the opinions of voters, i.e. demagoguery.

I'm not going to go down the Tea Party road again other than to say that whether you agree with my opinion of them or not, it is most certainly fact-based. First, they are far right wing. Second, many of them, especially at the top, are nutjobs, conspiracy theorists, and/or have bought into foolish policy ideas.

I'll assume we can agree on the first point by inspection. On the second point, I'll ask you to note that most of their ideas and rhetoric are a rehashing of Birch Society nonsense that was banished from the GOP by Bill Buckley...who BTW is the type of conservative I would consider myself to be. I'll conclude by saying "Glenn Beck". Anyone that follows him simply can't be completely sane, very bright or both. Again, even if you don't agree, at the very least I think you'd have to give me a sound basis for my opinion of them.

As for demagoguery, I find it ironic that you'd attempt to apply this label to me while ignoring the many, many instances where the Tea Party and to a certain degree the GOP used demagoguery and even outright lies to manipulate the voters and public opinion. Examples you say? OK:

The death panel nonsense
Characterizing the Dems as "socialists"
Yelling "They're going to cut your Medicare" and painting themselves as the defenders of the program based on the Dem's proposed cuts as part of the healthcare reform bill. Classic liberal demagoguery repurposed for the GOP.
Obama as Muslim
Blaming the financial collapse on the CRA
Characterization of Pelosi/Reid as communists/socialists
Obama as Nazi
Obama not American born
The need to purify the party of "RHINOs".
Demonization of bank and auto industry bailouts as "socialism"
The ACORN lies

I could go on but that's just off the top of my head.

Again, much of the above is incredibly ironic. After all, W. heard nothing but crickets from a GOP controlled congress when he proposed privatizing Social Security. Likewise, instead of trying to get rid of Medicare, that same GOP controlled congress instead voted with W. to expand it. The Tea Party is different though, right? Wrong. How many of them would have been elected had they proposed getting rid of those and other govt. programs. Ask Sharon Angle about that, or Rand Paul who as I've mentioned has already flipped. Even Michelle Bachmann has sought to redfine what an earmark is. I guess it depends on what the meaning of the word is, is.

IMHO, the worst demagoguery of all is the hypocritical variety. At the very least when the Dems do it they're being genuine in wanting to tax and spend. However the GOP, and now the Tea Partyers as well, use demagoguery to inflame emotions and paint themselves as fiscally conservative while spending as much or more as Dems and running up higher deficits.

If you don't believe me, answer the following. Who was in charge of all three branches of government when the pay-as-you-go spending rule expired? Who chose to not renew it? Hint, it wasn't the tax and spenders....or was it?



Sorry to be the one to tell you, but we were sold a bill of goods. I for one ain't buying it anymore.

The kind of mental masturbation you went through on this post is a prime example why trying to discuss politics with you is a complete waste of time.

First all you decree that your opinions are based in fact.

Then you decree what the facts are. The tea party is far right wing, many are nut jobs, conspiracy theorists, and/or have bought into foolish policy ideas.

Since in your mind these are “facts” they can not be disputed and they serve the purpose of demeaning anyone who does not accept your “facts.” For example, anyone who follows Glenn Beck is insane or stupid.

Having now categorized entire groups of people as stupid nuts, you can now discount anything they have to say, because (in your mind) you are superior because you have the facts on your side. You have now successfully rationalized a reason to not bother listening to what anyone who disagrees with you.

I can say that the NAACP is racist because there are members of the NAACP who are racists. But my saying it doesn’t make it so. I can say that anyone that follows Olbermann can’t be completely sane or very bright or both. But my saying it doesn’t make it so. It would be just my opinion. But simplistically categorizing someone makes it easy to then discount them and their opinions. It may serve to make you feel superior because your opinions are all “fact-based” and so you can fluff up your feathers and parade around but that is all it does.

So how do you categorize me? I support a large part of the tea party agenda. But I also support gay marriage, I believe in a progressive income tax, yet I believe that corporate income taxes should be 0. I support inheritance taxes yet favor a small low cost government. I favor a health insurance mandate and subsides for lower income people to pay for their health insurance, but I also support separating health insurance purchases from employment. I think the Keynesians and the Ron Paul “end the Fed” and “Gold standard” types are both wrong. I believe in affirmative action but based upon social-economic status rather than race. I like Bill O’Reilly and Juan Williams. Dislike Olbermann and Rush Limbaugh. I think that Parker Spitzer is a match made in heaven; she’s a whore (metaphorically speaking) and he’s a whore-monger (in reality). So how do you pigeon hole me, conservative, liberal, libertarian, socialist, communist, nut-case?

It’s nice and clean to be able to simply label people. It makes it easy to not bother to listen and to discount their opinions. But that is what you do. It is spread throughout your political posts and it smacks of an intellectual arrogance that is both off-putting and in my opinion undeserved. It makes it virtually impossible to have a meaningful discussion with you. But I bet you have very robust political discussions with people that agree with you but that is nothing but an echo chamber.

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

im a foreigner but its strikes me that tea party zealots are just a natural offshoot of a disillusioned voting public who have tolerated a waterring down and ignoring of any issues they feel are important, in any such group you will have the wingnuts, but I have read their literature and for the most part I agree with it. yes im conservative but I dont believe in 2 party politics at all.

 

[Yusuf06]

Then you decree what the facts are. The tea party is far right wing, many are nut jobs, conspiracy theorists, and/or have bought into foolish policy ideas.

Having now categorized entire groups of people as stupid nuts, you can now discount anything they have to say, because (in your mind) you are superior because you have the facts on your side. You have now successfully rationalized a reason to not bother listening to what anyone who disagrees with you.

Please point out where I said that my opinion of them was an indisputable fact? As I said earlier, others may disagree with me, but they certainly can't say that my opinion is a baseless one. That's all I really care about. When others have baseless opinions and are unwilling to find the facts to back up their position, that's when I tend to discount them. Generally, it means they simply want to believe what they do, regardless of the facts. These are probably the kinds of people Richard Posner was thinking of when he penned this article.

It’s nice and clean to be able to simply label people. It makes it easy to not bother to listen and to discount their opinions. But that is what you do. It is spread throughout your political posts and it smacks of an intellectual arrogance that is both off-putting and in my opinion undeserved. It makes it virtually impossible to have a meaningful discussion with you. But I bet you have very robust political discussions with people that agree with you but that is nothing but an echo chamber.

I'd beg to differ about most everything but the arrogance part. Guilty as charged on that one, to an extent anyway. IMHO, a little bit of arrogance isn't a bad thing as long as it doesn't take over your personality and close your mind to other points of view. We might differ, but I think I'm doing OK with it.

You might be surprised to know how often I ask myself, "If you're so damned smart, why aren't you rich?". Trust me, whether phrased as a question or a comment, I do so at least several times every day.

I agree that I do tend to label people. It's a flaw that I'm well aware of and that I've tried to fix...unfortunately to no avail. Therefore to mitigate that tendency, I make it a point to do two things. First, I always keep an open mind about the label I apply and to never allow it to become a permanent fixture in my mind. Second, I always remind myself that everyone has different intellectual strengths and weaknesses.

Keeping my humility is never difficult when I look around and see others that are much more brilliant than I am at art, math, writing, athletics, and a whole host of things. In short, I know I don't know everything...no matter how much it may appear otherwise.

As for my discussions with others, I rarely agree with people on things, even when I actually do agree with them. It's much more enjoyable for me to have an interesting conversation where I might learn something, even if I have to play devil's advocate to do so.

So how do you categorize me? I support a large part of the tea party agenda.

As a pretty smart guy and as an exception to the rule. Ditto that for the other Tea Party types that I've gone toe-to-toe with here.

I never said every single person in the Tea Party fits my opinion of the group as a whole. I do believe most of them do though. What I admittedly can't know is what the ratio is. Is it say, 60 wackos to 40 people like you, or is it more like 80:20, or even 51:49? Who knows? If I find out that I'm wrong or that the ratio is closer to 50:50, then I'll change my opinion of them. However, when a group makes "purifying" the party of people that aren't conservative enough a large part of their M.O., (among other things) it's awfully hard not to see them as far right radicals.

You laughed earlier when I said that I consider myself a William F. Buckley conservative. Yes, Buckley was probably a bit further right than I am on some issues. However, what I always admired about him was his ability to admit an error in reasoning and change his position accordingly. Additionally, I greatly admired his ability to fully and credibly explain his reasoning where his opinion diverged from conservative orthodoxy as well as his willingness to break with said orthodoxy.

Conservatives pride themselves on resisting change, which is as it should be. But intelligent deference to tradition and stability can evolve into intellectual sloth and moral fanaticism, as when conservatives simply decline to look up from dogma because the effort to raise their heads and reconsider is too great. --William F. Buckley