...wherein he quotes, with approval, the following, from one of his less critical admirers:
"I've got [sic] really tired from [sic] morons having grand time [sic] at that idiotic thread at WWWW.
Here is a comment I have posted:
"steve burton sez [sic]:
"'I've been listening to Mark Steyn's America Alone on my Ipod, while tending to my garden, for the last couple of days, just to see if there might be any merit to Auster's critique.
"'The book is great fun, beautifully written, & perfectly calculated to move casual readers in exactly the direction that Auster (presumably) wants them moved.'
"'Why that's not good enough for him, I simply can't understand.'"
All accurately quoted. But continuing (and this is apparently addressed to me):
"Would you kindly point me to a place in the book where Steyn has proposed a solution to the West's predicament...Clearly you have to re-read Steyn book [sic]."
etc. etc. etc.
* * * * *
Well, no, Mick, I wouldn't. Yet no, Mick, I don't have to.
Look, guy. Mark Steyn is a fantastically talented diagnostician of the spiritual decay of the post-modern West.
That's his thing. And it's a thing that's well worth doing.
So what if he's only filled the glass half full?
Does that make him dirt?
Does that make him a traitor?