nw art planet music politics science history thought fun meta

12 Comments »

1. Max wrote,
   

   Of course Jerome is trying to make a case which leads him to leave out what he doesn't think bolsters it. Here's a missing quote (from the first comment):

   After thousands of lives lost and billions of dollars spent, many Americans may be tempted to turn inward and cede our leadership in world affairs. But this is a mistake we must not make. America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, and the world cannot meet them without America. We can neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission. We must lead the world, by deed and by example.

   Such leadership demands that we retrieve a fundamental insight of Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy — one that is truer now than ever before: the security and well-being of each and every American depend on the security and well-being of those who live beyond our borders.

   Changes the tone just a tad.

   I would add that leadership does not have to consist only of a preeminence in the ability to kill people. Things like joining with the world to manage climate change and colonizing space would be a good start.

   Comment on May 31, 2007 @ 8:27 am

2. Max wrote,
   

   Another strong counter to the slama-Obama piece:

   In other words, Jerome is positing that Obama cares only about threats. That he's some sort of Rudy Guiliani is sheeps clothing. But, really, is the fact that Obama notices threats in the world (and that Jerome is good at cutting and pasting those parts into a diary with a clever title) mutually exclusive from his believing that American isn't going to partner with the rest of the world or think cooperatively about the problems of other countries? Because notice what Obama says in the very beginning of this whole article:

   "The mission of the United States is to provide global leadership grounded in the understanding that the world shares a common security and a common humanity."

   Comment on May 31, 2007 @ 9:02 am

3. byronius wrote,
   

   Two things about this:

   Jerome quotes something Obama says, and then interprets it in a way that really stretches the possible meaning. I immediately saw this as someone with an axe to grind. I agree with a lot of what Obama is saying, and the practice by Jerome of pointing out what Obama isn’t saying as evidence of a positive statement is ludicrous.

   Obama’s a damned smart human being. Would make a fine president. I have personally heard him tell it like it is, and that means a hell of a lot to me. Edwards says it even more clearly, Hillary a little less clearly, Al Gore is the Goddamned Beacon Of Truth On This Earth, and I haven’t heard a single sane word from any GOP candidate AT ALL, except for Ron Paul.

   Obama’s words on Israel are not immediate evidence that he is ‘just like Bush’. For god’s sake, that’s such a fucking pitiful thing to say, and automatically destroys Mr. Paris’s credibility — it sounds like any standard Democratic line on Israel to me, right or wrong.

   ‘Over the horizon’ — I understand exactly what Obama is saying here, and again, Jerome sounds like a fool. Let me illustrate the technique:

   Candidate A: ‘We need to improve our relationship with Russia.’

   Critic: ‘Candidate A isn’t mentioning Russia’s mass murder of Polish military officers in 1945 — does he support the murder of innocent Poles, then? I think so! Add to this the undeniable fact that someone in Russia once did something bad — does the candidate therefore support Bad People? Apparently. Even worse, the candidate has not shown us photographic evidence that he is not the Boston Strangler, therefore his candidacy is putting ALL AMERICAN CHILDREN AT GREAT RISK! Flee! Flee!!’

   And so on. I mean, I can write a great polemic myself, so I recognize all the standard modes. This guy Jerome’s a total dork. Not even half as polemically talented as some of NW’s former blogbarf spewers.

   Ahem. ‘Total Dork’ – that’s a technical term.

   Comment on May 31, 2007 @ 12:54 pm

4. Max wrote,
   

   “There will be trouble when the cobbler bakes.”

   This was a crude translation of one of my favorite Russian proverbs from “Dom Maxophia,” my original family website circa 1996 or so. The meaning is that when someone starts working outside of their field of expertise it could mean trouble for one or many. Jerome is actually a very good writer on energy issues and has done a lot of good on creation of clean/renewable energy proposals for Europe and the Dems. Here he seems to be a cobbler baking. I would not use the term ‘total dork’ in this case, but would instead use the more precisely technical ‘complete ass.’

   Comment on May 31, 2007 @ 1:16 pm

5. Begemotya wrote,
   

   You know, I caught a very suspicious whiff or partisan orienteering as I read Jerome’s piece. I don’t have time to go to the original Foreigh Affairs article today, but clearly no one should give J’s opinions credence until doing so. Talk is cheap, and snippets of quotes are easy to spin in whatever direction you like. Concepts like “global leadership” can easily be tinted with a sinister militaristic connotation, but they might just as easily be recognized as a very desirable thing–one of the countless areas where the Retarded Monkey-Boy’s administration has so egregiously belly-flopped. So read this kind of polemic with xtreme care, especially when you have the original text immediately at hand.

   (Incidentally, I love that Russian poslovitsa[aphorism]–though whether Jerome is a cobbler baking, a bass player splitting firewood, or a tech writer wiring kitchen appliances, will perhaps never be known.)

   Comment on May 31, 2007 @ 2:24 pm

6. Begemotya wrote,
   

   Duh, another typo, and in the very first line: I meant “whiff OF . . . “

   Comment on May 31, 2007 @ 2:26 pm

7. Begemotya wrote,
   

   Hey wait a sec–don’t they call guitar players “axe-men”? Same should go for bass players, no? Maybe let’s say: blog-meisters vodka quaffing? Cliff divers Bulgakov quoting? Rouse slammers tadpole catching? Banya roasters baseball coaching? Getting warm–we’ll figure this out eventually . . .

   Comment on May 31, 2007 @ 2:41 pm

8. byronius wrote,
   

   Vegetarians tasting salmon on crackers?

   ‘What, fish isn’t a vegetable?’

   -Begemotya, paraphrased.

   Comment on May 31, 2007 @ 3:04 pm

9. Begemotya wrote,
   

   Sir, you do me a grave injustice! Those were homemade garlic crostini, not mere “crackers”!!

   The salmon, however, was indeed carnivor-ian, as I now freely admit.

   Comment on May 31, 2007 @ 3:17 pm

10. Max wrote,
    

    Fish are merely swimming vegetables. The mimicking of faces is a biological adaptation to fool Paul (“I won’t eat anything with a face”) McCartnyists.

    Comment on May 31, 2007 @ 3:37 pm

11. Begemotya wrote,
    

    McCartnyism, ugh! Wasn’t he that whack-o waving that list of communists in the State Department? But anyhow, why bring that fool Paul into this discussion–I prefer Matthew. He’s the one who turned those forty fish into wine, as I recall.

    Comment on May 31, 2007 @ 3:59 pm

12. Max wrote,
    

    “I prefer Matthew. He’s the one who turned those forty fish into wine, as I recall.”

    Wasn’t that the J-man? Or did he just claim credit for himself for all the cool tricks his little band of wizards pulled off? Hey- maybe the J-man was set up! Maybe he was just an innocent bystander who the masses were led to believe was the messiah- ala Life of Brian. Meanwhile the crafty D’s were doling out the acid and using guided mass hallucination to get their kicks (yeah I’ve seen fish turn into bread too under the right conditions).

    Comment on May 31, 2007 @ 4:45 pm

Leave a comment

Name

Mail (will not be published)

Website

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

• Dig