He calls missing teenager Natalee Holloway a "rich bitch," declaring: "I hope her mother stumbles upon Natalee's rotting corpse" in Aruba. He tags a woman "a race traitor" for seeing a "colored" man, calling it "poetic justice" when the man attacked the woman. Regarding Hurricane Dennis, he laments: "unfortunately at this time, it is not expected to grow to hurricane force" to devastate another "redneck state." He refers to soldiers as "Army pukes" who are "pathetic losers," and celebrates when they die. Elsewhere, he waxes: "Priests typically molest little boys." He writes that "cops are the most evil, vile creatures out there in my estimation." He is Michael Crook, a despicable scribbler who insists he's not joking. In an earlier time, Crook might have relied on spraypaint as his means of communication. In 2005, he uses a weblog.

Such speech typically inspires a multitude of reactions. At one end, demands are made upon the government to silence the offender. At the other end, praise is heaped upon the Michael Crooks of the world (and the Larry Flynts and Howard Sterns) for guaranteeing rights for the rest of us by constantly poking at the boundaries of governmental tolerance. Another reaction is more sensible: the understanding that freedom is an amoral state that allows people to act morally or immorally. Freedom is a means, not an end. Freedom is a necessary precondition to virtue--and thus quite positive--but not virtue itself. Conservatives recognize this. Libertarians don't.

You forgot the one about Marines being baby killers.

I will exercise my freedom of speech by calling Michael Crook a reprehensible jackass. His statements prove that just because you have something to say, doesn't necessarily mean you have something intelligent to say.

Most neo-con bloggers have little intelligence so all they can do is personally attack and make innane conclusions based largely on spin. Your blog is a prime example. All this double-talk about freedom then you attack anyone when they excercise their freedom if they don't conform with your narrow vision. Of course, you don't see the double-standard. Remember, in Mr. Crook's world you are just another neo-con mouthpiece and whatever you say is of little concern. People that live in glass houses should not throw stones.

GA liberal,
Are you drunk? Just as it is the idiot Crook's right to condemn and criticize, it is also Dan Flynn's right. You appear to welcome Brook's expression of ideas but condemn the exercise of Flynn's. You appear not to support freedom for those with whom you disagree and support it for those with whom you do agree. That is the only double standard in this instance.

Crook's world is certainly a small one as few people actually hold the vile opinions Flynn alludes to. If what Flynn says is of so little concern, why are you so concerned as to write your insulting comment?

GaLiberal,
ZZZZZ...you bore me with your rhetoric, please leave...zzzzzzz

As I certainly think that this guy is either nuts or just spouting crap to get a reaction, I also think that it’s his right to be or to act kooky. As long as he’s not hurting anybody, he can write what he wants and it will be up to the readers out there to decide whether or not his spew has an audience.

Wait a minute, why exactly shouldn't this guy be able to say what he wants?

Not that I approve of this guy, but freedom is not a tool to be curbed or expanded in your never-ending quest for a society that you have decided is the most virtuous.

This is not such thing as unchosen virtue. You all understand why the government implementing income tax to fund charitable organizations is not really charity, why don't you understand why government-forced virtue is not really a virtuous society?

Ben-T: Neither the initial post, nor any subsequent comment suggested that silencing this guy was a good thing. ASDF noted Crook's "right to be or to act kooky." Webster spoke of "Crook's right to condemn." I spoke of freedom as "a necessary precondition to virtue" and freedom as being "quite positive." Yet, you write: "why don't you understand why government-forced virtue is not really a virtuous society?" Who is this strawman you are questioning?

My guess is that this guy is just trying to be shocking, and shouldn't be taken seriously. Lord Acton said that liberty was the highest political end, but not the highest end. Some libertarians get this, but many do not.

An example of some who do not are the folks at Reason Magazine. Take their 35 heroes of freedom." They have some people legitimately worthy of praise (Milton Friedman, Ron Paul, FA Hayek, and Rose Wilder Lane), some outright leftists if not communists (Nelson Mandela, Vaclav Havel), but most telling they have many people who they simply deem "groovy" who's sole advancement to freedom was to offend people's taste like Larry Flynt, Dennis Rodman, Maddonna, WIlliam Borroughs etc.

At best people like Flynt should be described as reprehensible, but their freedom should be supported; but to call them heroes of freedom in the same category of Hayek and Goldwater is absurd.

Most neo-con bloggers have little intelligence so all they can do is personally attack and make innane conclusions based largely on spin.
Posted by GaLiberal at July 7, 2005 09:19 AM

lol!

I love it when knee-jerk reactionary liberals claim that highlighting indisputable and objective facts constitutes spin.

GaLiberal, you make a classic mistake and turns this into a partisan issue. This has nothing to do with political affiliation, it has everthing to do with simple decency. Yes GaLib, even though I am not one, I do believe that liberals can be decent people. I hardly think that your party's base or mine would subscribe to the hate this man spews. If you consider that a narrow view so be it. I hold freedom of speech dear, I detest what he says but don't dispute his right to say it. When this man looks into a mirror and sees how hollow his soul is I doubt he clutches his voter registration card for comfort. Grow up GaLib.

I wouldn't agree what freedom is amoral since freedom is the antithesis of coercion and prevents the state from arbitrarily violating peoples' liberty and property. Virtue is far more important since a nation can compromise its freedom and continue to thrive. However, when a nation succumbs to vice nothing can save it.

Dan Flynn is a neocon? Wow, that is real funny Galib, seriously, feel free to actually read the site once and a while.

Isn't this the same guy who got verbally back-handed on the Hannity and Colmes for his "ForsakeThe Troops" and "ForsakeTheCops" websites he was running? Didn't he also fake his own death, causing an Instalaunch over at the Democratic Underground?

This guy is as well known as syphilis- and about half as desireable.

Ben-T: Neither the initial post, nor any subsequent comment suggested that silencing this guy was a good thing. ASDF noted Crook's "right to be or to act kooky." Webster spoke of "Crook's right to condemn." I spoke of freedom as "a necessary precondition to virtue" and freedom as being "quite positive." Yet, you write: "why don't you understand why government-forced virtue is not really a virtuous society?" Who is this strawman you are questioning?
Posted by Dan Flynn at July 7, 2005 11:34 AM

I was referencing an earlier debate we've had in which the position on many of the blow was that the government has to intervene in order to ensure society remains virtuous, or, in their teminology, that the "good life" is attained. It is a stance I disagree with, so in many ways I was continuing that earlier debate.

Now it is obviously quite possible I misinterpreted your post, but the implication seemed to be to me to use the example of the blogger, who is by all means a jerk, to show that uncurbed freedom is not necessarilly a good thing or to show that freedom does not necessarilly lead to good ends, and to imply that freedom needs curbing to ensure that the good life is attained.

The power of the government to intervene in the lives of it's citizens in order to assure that the "good life" or what is considered a virtuous society, is maintained, more or less somes up the position of the socially conservative, as I understand it. I would argue that the better way to do things would be to ensure that each citizen is fully freed to puruse their own vision of the good life, so long as they do not infringe on the rights of other citizens. This is what I think of when I read "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." The right to freely pursue one's own happiness so long as one does not infringe on the life or the liberties of any other citizen. That would be the standpoint of the Libertarian.

Just a quick note...

Mr. Flynn rightfully points out what a douche this blogger is. For one example, he cites Crook's calling the gal a "race traitor." If this is so sickening -- which I agree, it is -- then why did he pen a glowing eulogy for Sam Francis earlier this year, the man who espoused views like these?

Michael Crook is a complete tool. He calls himself a "racialist", and not a "racist", though those words are synonyms. He has no brains what-so-ever. It's official and bluntly apparent that Michael Crook is the dumbest human being on the face on the entire planet which we are forced to share this miserable existence with.

Michael Crook has the right to say whatever he pleases, as do all you people who are here whining about it.

Speaking of which, talk about the pot calling the kettle black, Dan Flynn.

Jamie, I completely agree with you. But it is important to add that many of those who post on this site -- the paleoconservatives -- would dispute your assertion that "racialist" is the equivalent of "racist."

Strange that an advocate of taking "the Patriot Act off the books--except for Muslims" would be lecturing others about bigotry and prejudice.

Strange that a die hard defender of two people with racist/racialist views (Jefferson and Lincoln) would accuse others of being racist on such specious evidence.

Strange that an advocate of taking "the Patriot Act off the books--except for Muslims" would be lecturing others about bigotry and prejudice.

Where is the bigotry or prejudice here? Unlike your pals' opinions of blacks, I don't believe Muslims are innately inferior. I don't believe swarthy-looking men are innately inferior (in fact, I am a swarthy-lookin' fellow myself), yet it is perfectly understandable that people who look like me should be scrutinized at an airport more than Lindsay Lohan.

Strange that a die hard defender of two people with racist/racialist views (Jefferson and Lincoln) would accuse others of being racist on such specious evidence.

Are you denying that Sam Francis was a racist or at the very least a racialist? He was openly disgusted by the sight of a lowly Negro touching a Pristine, Blonde, Nordic Woman. That backwards weirdo.

And as I argued in the other thread, I don't believe Thomas Jefferson is deserving of scorn for his views on racial matters. Today we have abundant evidence of blacks' potential, and such evidence was unavailable at his time.

"The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people."

-- Sam Francis

What was that about "specious evidence," short?

Anyways, about the Patriot Act thing: perhaps my immediate reaction, suggesting to restrict the Patriot Act solely to Muslims, was a bit extreme. In the future, I should wait until after the initial passions temper before making policy judgments.

Ben L: The specious evidence was not in your accusation against Francis (who was hardly a "pal" of mine so don't make obnoxious comments like that). The specious evidence was against Flynn. Flynn didn't heap praise on Sam Francis, he just, overlooking his racist views, blogged kindly on him upon the man's early death. Is that such a terrible thing? You have heaped praise on Lincoln and Jefferson (whose views on race are a lot closer to Francis's than yours), and you have judged that there is good reason to overlook their views about race. I think you're right to do so. But your attack on Flynn, which is a typical BS liberal move, applies all the moreso to yourself. This typical liberal move really gets under my skin b/c it's incredibly terrifying and evil.

Francis was also incredibly overwieght--Do you think Flynn was tacitly supporting the man's terrible lifestyle? Freddy Mercury was a flamboyant and promiscuous homosexual who partied in South Africa while other civilized people were boycotting the racist country; if I frondly comment on Queen do I tacitly condone his sinful ways? How many sins of famous people do I have to list before we give up this arrogant unforgiving comdemnation of people we don't know?

I actually did comment on Freddie Mercury on the anniversary of his passing back in November. Here's the link:
http://www.flynnfiles.com/archives/pop_culture2004/freddie_mercury_has_been_gone_for_13_years.html

The specious evidence was against Flynn.

I never implied Flynn was a racist. I simply pointed out that it was hypocritical to ignore racialism when it came from one direction -- the kook Right -- but to condemn when it came from another -- the kook Left.

You have heaped praise on Lincoln and Jefferson (whose views on race are a lot closer to Francis's than yours)

Sam Francis did not live in the 18th and 19th centuries. I wouldn't fault a man for believing in a flat Earth before Columbus.

Francis was also incredibly overwieght--Do you think Flynn was tacitly supporting the man's terrible lifestyle?

Francis was a writer. I didn't suggest that Flynn had to tear up a man who had recently died. However, it is important to be honest about what the man had written. His views were marked by an unnerving obsession with race. I expect an intellectually honest man like Dan Flynn not to simply echo the praise heaped on Francis from paleoconservatives.

SO since he linked to your blog... it is only fitting that his own stupidity be used against him.

For those of you who would liek to exercise YOUR free speech, you can call Michael Crook on a few lesser known numbers. (these may change,as they are most likely pre-paid phones:

Michael Crook Vogel-Delaney should hear some other peoples opinions and see them exercise their right to free speech