Liberal Pundits Offer Unprecedented Apology
Alternate Universe Washington, DC (AUP)--An influential group of liberal pundits and political commentators has formed a new organization to apologize for their columns on Ned Lamont's 2006 challenge to Joe Lieberman (R - Forallintentsandpurposes) and to call for their own resignations.
The organization, "Repentant Villagers," announced today that it would be issuing formal apologies to hundreds of liberal bloggers, including Duncan Black, Jane Hamsher, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, Glenn Greenwald, and "Digby," acknowledging that the progressive blogosphere was right about Lieberman after all. "No one could have anticipated the breach of the party," said Jonathan Chait, senior editor of the New Republic. "But Lieberman's recent op-ed, calling the Democratic Party insufficiently pro-American, is just sheer barking lunacy. I could never have seen this coming two years ago when I was calling Lieberman's critics 'a pack of crazed, ignorant ideological cannibals,' and I'm deeply sorry. It looks like I turned out to be the truly ignorant one in the end."
Time magazine columnist Joe Klein sounded a similar note, saying, "it's true what that Eschatros guy says on his blog--we really do live in a village*, and we really do listen only to each other. I just never realized what a hermetic little clique I inhabit until I started reading around in the fever swamp of the blogosphere--and now I wonder, frankly, what makes my commentary any better than the bloggers'. Because I was clearly so clueless on Lamont-Lieberman that I really need to check myself. Now I wonder whether my columns on FISA were any good, or whether I was just making stuff up."
Perhaps the most scathing self-critique came from Jacob Weisberg, who called for himself to step down as editor of the prominent online journal Slate. "I just don't believe in myself anymore," said Weisberg. "When I wrote that Lamont's victory would spell disaster for the Democrats because it would represent the triumph of McGovernite peaceniks and Communist symps, I must have been on acid or something. Seriously. Look at what I actually wrote:
Whether Democrats can avoid playing their Vietnam video to the end depends on their ability to project military and diplomatic toughness in place of the elitism and anti-war purity represented in 2004 by Howard Dean and now by Ned Lamont.
"And now Lieberman is out there playing that 'toughness' card for John McCain. I just can't believe it. Back in 2006, I looked at Ned Lamont and I saw George McGovern. I looked at his supporters and I saw thousands of Abbie Hoffmans--almost like a pack of crazed, ignorant ideological cannibals. And you know what's really trippy about that? I was only eight years old in 1972. But that's the way I was taught to see liberal challengers to people like Lieberman, and that's the way all my friends in the industry were writing. There's something deeply wrong with all of us, no question. So today I say: up against the wall! If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. And I have definitely been part of the problem."
Weisberg immediately rejected his call for his resignation, however, explaining that it would only embolden America's enemies and that the next six months would be a critical time for Slate.
_____
* Thanks to Ari Kelman of this fine blog for this line.
As Jackie Gleason's bus driving character would have said...
Hardy, Har, Har, Har!"...
Your senario would happen only in an alternate universe where pundits have some sense of morals and shame...today's pundits lack both.
There's not so much an acknowledgement with the pundit class of being wrong as twisting the facts to hide and distort their own involvement in supporting this criminal regime....
May 23, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is pretty good snark. Too bad it would never happen for real.
May 23, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman says in his linked article
That's certainly true...as any reading of posts to the Guardian, the Daily Kos, this site, or any other progressive outlet makes amply clear.
and
I don't know about this but I bet Lieberman does.May 23, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
This comment is a joke, right? I'm asking because I don't understand "irony" on the Internets.
May 23, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. It's not a joke. I wish it was.
May 23, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
So why do you hate America?
May 23, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since you don't understand irony you mean what you say. Unfortunately, it doesn't make sense.
May 23, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just had to agree to some terms of use to post....I can picture you cursing out TPM mightily for that.
I didn't read them, but clicked "I agree" anyway. Does that mean I have abide by them?
May 23, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, offensivetoyou, you said that America is a morally bankrupt, imperialist power whose militarism and "inordinate fear of communism" represented the real threat to world peace. That's pretty strong stuff -- I've never seen anything like that said here or on Kos. You must be one of those Communist symps I read about at Slate.
May 23, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ Berube
Ahh...I see what the problem is, Mr. Berube. You can't read. It wasn't I who said that, it was Lieberman. That's why I used "blockquote" and prefaced it with "Lieberman says in his linked article".
That's pretty strong stuff -- I've never seen anything like that said here or on Kos.
No? Can't read and can't see. Pretty handicapped aren't you? I've seen that literally on all the sites I mentioned.
But. Here's how it goes.
First. The United States is not a democracy, it's a plutocracy - of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.
says Kozmik to the applause of libertine, Donna G, Wholly Rogue Emperor,Ondioline,Qwerty
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/21/new_republic_hillary_may_have/#comments
You can find those sentiments on almost every thread.
And how do these Plutocrats behave abroad? About like you'd expect. Remember all those "root cause " threads? The "chickens coming home to roost"? I didn't have time to search them out but they're there...in spades.
And who's behind the Plutocrats? The Jooos, of course. Here at home it's AIPAC secretely manipulating U.S. foreign policy for the benefit of other JOOOS, cheered on by ignorant evangelicals too stupid to know they're being had.
On this site these comments tend to be a little circumspect, restrained by faux politeness and intellectual pretense...but at the Daily Kos and the Guardian they're right out in the open.
May 23, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
@Berube
Since you linked Lieberman's article I assumed you read it. He says that the Left developed a "rival political philosophy" with America as the villain. I agreed with his characterization of the Left, not with their "rival political philosophy", and I said one could find examples of that philosophy on almost any progressive site.
Clearly, you understood, because you denied seeing any such examples.
May 23, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahh...I see what the problem is, Mr. Berube. You can't read.
Oh, you poor dear. You don't understand when someone's yanking your chain. Well, you see, when Barack Hussein X and I were at Columbia, he majored in Anti-Americanism, and I majored in troll-baiting. That's why he's running for the nomination of the Democrat party, and I'm just a TPM blogger.
Can't read and can't see. Pretty handicapped aren't you?
What? I can't hear you.
And who's behind the Plutocrats? The Jooos, of course.
OK, so now you're apparently lining up behind Lieberman on the grounds that Lamont supporters were anti-Semites. Bad play, sir! That was very ill-advised of you. This was the point at which you were supposed to say, "I used to be a Democrat. But when Ned Lamont challenged Joe Lieberman, I decided I was disgusted by Islamofascist appeasers like Abbie Hoffman." Then you were supposed to say something about Obama and Neville Chamberlain, and how you didn't leave the Democrat party, it left you.
Well, I'm not going to write your comments for you, friendo. I will, however, toy with you for a little while longer, until I tire of the noises you make and send you back to Free Republic.
May 23, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 23, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Friendo, Lieberman is arguing that Obama's candidacy is tantamount to something like a Chomsky/Zinn ticket in 1968. He's also saying (in his very own words) "I felt strongly that Democrats should embrace the basic framework the president had advanced for the war on terror as our own, because it was our own." Yep, that's right, he's still stumping for the fiasco in Iraq, still saying that the Democrats should have signed on unanimously for the biggest foreign policy debacle in American history, and you think that's fine. (For a nice solid, snark-free reply to Weepin' Joe's embrace of that basic framework, you should read this. You will learn something, I promise.)
So the point, dear boy, is that the "substance" of your initial comment was too substanceless to bother with. And your more recent attempt to equate criticism of AIPAC with anti-Semitism is quite vile. So this is goodbye, friendo. Although you're a little bit vicious and not very bright, you were kinda fun until you became totally unhinged.
May 23, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, Lieberman is wrong. So therefore you are wrong.
May 26, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, my friend it is a joke. Just not the funny kind, much like it's author.
May 23, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since you quoted Lieberman, could you explain who Obama is supposed to "stand up to his party's left wing" when Obama is {gasp} the single most liberal Senator, EVAH!
Wouldn't he be standing up to himself?
Is that anatomically possible?
May 23, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's all in Obama's record: he's never threatened Bernie Sanders to "serve [him] a knuckle sandwich with a side of whoop-ass" on the Senate floor. How can he protect !!!AMERICA!!! ?
May 25, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, I think we see the conservatives and neo-conservatives who usually run America's foreign policy as morally bankrupt threats to peace, but it's typical of those people's self-aggrandizing view that they equate themselves with "America."
Other than that major quibble which totatlly negates his larger point, Lieberman and you are spot on though.
May 23, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
LMAO. Liberal blogosphere vindication is such bliss. Sadly, the vast majority of the new arrivers gentrifying our dirty fucking hippy neighborhood just don't understand the graffitti.
May 23, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The irony is that Obama endorsed Lieberman against Lamont.
May 23, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoops, way bad googling on my part. Nevermind.
May 23, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
As did Hillary and the entire Democratic caucus, pretty much, but only in the primary.
Plus, this is long before Joe stuck his entire head up John McCain's ass.
May 23, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
True. Joe first had to dislodge his head from Bush's before moving on to John.
Who could ever have anticipated that someone who said that questioning the president was equivalent to putting our nation at risk would then, some two years later, question the patriotism of the entire Democratic Party?
Who?
May 23, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I just never realized what a hermetic little clique I inhabit ~ Joe Klein"
lol. No kidding.
May 23, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jacob Weisberg, Slate: (Lamont victory =) triumph of McGovernite peaceniks and Communist symps Forget who was for or against Lieberman in 2004, I don't recall Obama talking down about 'McGovern peaceniks'. McGovern was right, even if he did win only one state. War or use of force is pro-American only when it is the last resort, and it has the best chance of a politically successful outcome when it has near universal support among free nations of the world. George McGovern understood this, perhaps because he flew 35 missions in B-24's in the Mediterranean theater of WW2 against (real) Nazi's.
The "Repentant Villagers" can frankly take their ill-informed tripe and put it where the sun doesn't shine.
May 23, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, this is a case of everybody being wrong for different reasons. Overall bloggers were better, but there was still a lot of foolishness. Armando on DKos for example was particularly strident in asserting Lamont would win.
The "village" idiots were wrong for pretending Lieberman was anything but a triangulating DINO. He's always been a weasel, much like Hillary.
Bloggers against Lieberman were wrong for rallying support against him on the basis Lamont could win and in fact was a "shoo in" as Armando at DKos was fond of saying. (a complete douche who actually works for a rt wing law firm) Lamont was no Obama. Not even close. The result has been the "Independent Democrat" (wtf?) Lieberman is even worse than ever.
A better course would have been to criticize Lieberman and make him the poster boy for DINOs. Then wait to line up a candidate capable of delivering the death blow and remove him from office.
So, while the netroots were right on Lieberman the DINO, actually succeeding in actually removing him from office would have been helpful.
Back to Hillary... she'll probably pull a Lieberman and try to sabotage Obama by half heartedly endorsing him or fighting to the convention or otherwise trying to split the party. (Greg Sargent totally misses the point that anything less than 110% effort from her for unity is sabotage under the circumstances.)
At which point, the ability of net roots to call out her DINO ways and remove her office will be of great importance, because the MSM certainly won't by itself.
May 23, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS, Could Hillary become an "Independent Democrat" in NY? Or party switcher like Bloomberg? Maybe.
I doubt it. I suspect the "activist base" can pull her plug in the Dem Primary if she keeps F'ing up.
May 23, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You really missed the point of the Lieberman primary fight. The most important objective was achieved: Kicking Joe Lieberman out of the Democratic party.
This summer while he pulls "the full Zell" and lambastes Obama in a keynote address at the RNC, his caption will be "Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT)"
Lamont winning the general election would have been gravy, but was the less important fight.
Also, there is convincing evidence that the Lieberman primary in August turned the entire Democratic party against the Iraq war and subsequently won the 2006 election. Prior to August, Rahm had written an infamous memo advising Democratic congressional challengers to avoid talking about the war. Lamont's primary win gave Democrats the spine to oppose the war.
May 23, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's like saying the "real point" of the Iraq war was removing Saddam, installing Chalabi, and grabbing the oil. That's not what they claimed it was for not would that have been marketable to the general public. They claimed it would be quick and easy and everything rosy, to which realists like myself replied "BS!."
Similarly, the netroots didn't claim it was just about kicking Lieberman out and then letting him stick around, shit on everything, and generally be worse than ever. To continue the Iraq analogy, yes Lieberman has always been an asshole, but he was somewhat more contained "in a box" than he is now.
Many claimed Lamont was a "shoo in" with only the thinnest disclaimers and imo lied to their readers.
Which is why realists like myself said "BS!" he's still going to be reelected and he's going to be worse than before, so be careful what you wish for, and don't leave the job half done.
May 23, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not defending their predictions about Lamont's chances in the general. That they were wrong about the result didn't mean their logic was so bad though. Lamont could have won that race. Who would predict the Republicans would literally abandon their own candidate?
It was a net-win and the comparison to Saddam doesn't fly. I well remember the discourse in the netroots before the Lieberman primary and it was about "bad Democrats who criticize Democrats." Lieberman was on Fox News every couple days to whine about how bad Democrats are on security. Fox loves turncoat Democrats. He was a constant knife in the back. Now he's swinging an axe, but he has to do it to our fronts.
No one kicked Zell Miller out of the party and he got to delivery a devestating PR hit to the party in the 2004 DNC. Your assumption seems to be if we had left Lieberman alone he wouldn't be doing this now. Maybe, maybe not, but I do know his primary defeat had a material effect on the kind of campaign Democrats ran in 2006, for the first time ignoring the Knights-who-say-"Broder" and running explicitly for ending the Iraq war.
Sitting senators don't lose primaries very often and when they do, people notice.
Ironically, Joe Lieberman owes his committee chairmanship to his own primary defeat that he's so bitter about. Webb and Tester were narrow wins and both were explicitly for withdrawal from Iraq. I credit Ned Lamont and the netroots for that.
May 23, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Who would predict the Republicans would literally abandon their own candidate?"
Any pragmatist including myself.
May 23, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still, the proof was in the pudding. Dems won in 2006. I fail to see how the results would be improved by leaving Lieberman in place.
All you have is that Lieberman is still bad mouthing us, which he would be doing anyway if he were still a Democrat.
I just spent half an hour rereading Kos posts from 2006 too, and not once did he claim it was a shoo in. Armando might have, but your broad brush doesn't cover the entire netroots. Lots of people knew it was a tough fight and didn't care, it was the right thing to do, and a good strategic gamble to boot.
May 23, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
What "pudding?" I was critically looking at demographics, poll data, his record and 18 years in office, etc. Not "pudding."
Based on that I predicted he would remain in office and that Lamont would hit a very hard ceiling of support.
I noticed the Independents of CT, especially older voters, saw themselves as a fairly cohesive "party" of centrists, self consciously so, even triangulating. (yes there are people who deliberately arrive at positions by averaging, ideological centrists) I realized they would remain loyal to Lieberman no matter what for years.
I noticed the issues had been framed long ago in a manner which Lieberman had triangulated to and was actively re-framing in his favor.
Furthermore, that Republicans would support Lieberman, it was a complete given. One has to be kind of clueless to imagine otherwise imo.
The problem is that more people didn't see that or predict it.
***
btw, I'm fine with arguing from the start, beforehand, that this possible outcome is still desirable and making that case honestly. But I'm completly disappointed by blogs failure to educate readers towards an informed and realistic choice beforehand. This rationalization after the fact is Orwellian.
To be blunt, it doesn't matter who's leading them: dumb and easily manipulated voters aren't going to improve anything. The first priority for any movement must be to inform and elevate voters.
May 23, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I made much the same calculation, knowing that Lieberman's position had always depended on strong conservative/Republican support.
I figured he was a shoo-in for the nomination, but winning the seat would be a whole 'nother matter - and yes, Lieberman would be even worse once he beat the Lamont.
But socking Lieberman and those like him with a serious primary challenge was itself important; beating him made the point explicit.
No incumbent wants to get primaried. Lieberman got as far as he did because the party let him get away with it, and even supported him in the primary.
But don't think for a minute that it didn't cause some serious re-thinking in the leadership, and that it hasn't made other Dems realize they were actually going to have to start giving something to the base. And many of them have realized that being a Fox Democrat means they might actually have to spend their campaign war chests just to stay in their jobs.
May 24, 2008 6:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel De Groot asks:
Aah, it's always good to encounter a student of the Condoleeza Rice school of thinking, where one can never predict anything.
Indeed, who could have thought that a life-long Democrat like Lieberman, who agrees with his Party on 90-95 percent of the issues and has a voting record to prove it, might be deeply offended by the effort mounted against him, and by the fiery, often very personal rhetoric? No one could have predicted that.
I certainly regret that in the aftermath of the electoral debacle in CT Joementum has become bitter and spiteful, but no one should pretend that his recent words and actions are unexpected, or were unprovoked.
May 23, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"a student of the Condoleeza Rice school of thinking, where one can never predict anything."
lol. Sad, but true.
Btw, it's closely related to the Don Rumsfeld school, where you can never predict anything, certainly not the worst outcomes, which is why you always encourage belief in the best possible outcome, while carefully CYA with disclaimers and caveats, in the fine print.
May 23, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman's bitterness didn't start with the primary challenge, it started with the fact that there was no enthusiasm for his presidential candidacy in 2004. He was furious, and from that moment on he actively worked against Democratic Party interests.
His floor votes on bills were mostly in line with the party, but he voted with the Republicans on amendments and procedural matters that made the difference in whether his floor votes would count. If you actively work to make sure a bad bill or bad nominee gets to the floor for a winning vote, voting against them is nothing but theater.
That's how Lieberman operates. There's a reason why he has had the support of William F. Buckley from the very beginning of his political career. He wasn't there to support the Democrats; he was there to get rid of liberal Republican Lowell Weicker and to keep any other liberal from taking that seat.
May 24, 2008 7:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel De Groot writes:
It's good to see someone finally admit that the Leftonuts are as much the proponents and practitioners of ideological purity as are the Wingnuts. As much as neither of the two groups likes to hear it, they are essentially twins separated at birth; the only difference is the color of their shirts.
May 23, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe that's another fallacy, called equivocation. Which you're attempting to elevate to a universal truth and ideology.
Nice try though.
May 23, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I kind of liked your old profile pic better, there, You Handsome Devil. The writing still sparkles, though.
May 23, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael Bérubé is does have a "sparkling" wit, but he also tends to distort and simplify issues to make his jokes.
Yes the netroots were right about Lieberman. Absolutely. But, he's completely side stepping that many at DKos (for one example) claimed Lamont was a "shoo in" and failed to remove Lieberman, who is now worse than ever. For which they take no responsibility, which is rather hypocritical. One can't both organize and claim to be uninvolved.
Bérubé's wit would improve if it was capable of dealing with complexity and the full breadth of issues. Shakespeare or Dostoyevsky he ain't.
May 23, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quite true, kozmic. I have completely failed to account for the complex fact that Armando was wrong to call Lamont a "shoo in." I have also completely failed to see what in the world that has to do with the Villagers' panicked sense that Ned Lamont's primary victory in 2006 augured an era of patchouli, hemp, acid, amnesty, and appeasement. But I didn't think much of Armando as a political commentator then, and I don't think much of him now.
And I share your outrage that Kos failed to remove Lieberman. I can't imagine what he was thinking.
May 23, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
There you go with the straw men again.
Was it just Armando? And why was Armando such a popular and priminant poster on DKos to begin with?
I think Kos and others have actually learned from the experience. And yes, the MSM was almost universally atrocious and remains so. But let's not whitewash it either.
The perception was rather widespread that Lamont had all the "momentum" vs "joementum" and was a "shoo-in." Lieberman wasn't treated with the seriousness he deserved, as a complete tool, but a well entrenched one. Going back to DKos and elsewhere, the vast majority of posts overwhelmingly presumed a Lamont victory, against the available facts.
Kos and others did issue Rumsfeld-esq CYA caveats, but didn't do much to encourage pragmatism or quell unrealistic perceptions. When it became clear Lamont was losing, a lot of people quickly changed the subject to focus on other races and changed their rationale for having opposed Lieberman to begin with.
Again, that's not good advocacy or leadership imo.
Going forward the netroots need to pick their battles wisely, advocate for them honestly laying out clearly the best case to worst case, and as Kos is find of saying: "be all about winning."
May 23, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have the netroots not satisfied you with sufficient contrition for Lieberman's victory? If you want somebody to congratulate you for going against the wisdom of Armando and predicting a Lamont loss in 2006, well here you go: congratulations, genius.
May 24, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and you're right, Kos can't organize and then claim to be uninvolved. I hate it when he claims to be uninvolved -- when in fact he is responsible for Joe Lieberman getting worse!
May 23, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, another straw man. That's consistently been my complaint about Berube.
I agree with much of his sentiment, but he insists on erecting these straw men to assail with his alleged "wit" that's more simplistic smugness than anything else. If he was really all that witty, he'd deal with the complexities of issues and not reduce them to cheap, smug, dualities.
May 23, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kozmik
You falsely attribute the fallacy of equivocation above somewhere. And you falsely attribute the fallacy of straw man in your first response to Michael. The second time he did use straw man against you but that might have been intentional. He is a devious type for sure.
Off the cuff:
Equivocation = (def) Using a word in two different senses to make a (fallacious argument)
Example: "Penicillin when it first came out was a miracle drug. Miracles are due to divine intervention, therefore, penicillin was due to divine intervention. Nothing like that was going on in that post you labeled equivocation.
Michael's first response to your post in which you maintain BOTH that Kos fought hard against Lieberman AND was somehow responsible for Lemont's defeat is a fair comment on his part. There is no straw man fallacy there. You seemed to be implying that if Kos had taken Lieberman's threat more seriously they could have defeated Lieberman, which is a little humorous.
The second charge of Straw Man has some merit. But I suspect that perhaps Michael was doing it on purpose to show some irony/sarcasm or what not.
Generally speaking, nothing hangs on it so why fight over it. You both are obviously Anti Lieberman, so what's the point?
Offensive is rather a more dangerous character. He argues for the dark side as I like to call it but he also often stings.
May 23, 2008 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you have the medical records from Joe Lieberman's psychiatrist to prove it?
May 23, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
btw, yes Leiberman has gotten worse directly as a result of being kicked out of the party. There is both good and bad to that, it's debatable how much.
Regardless, Kos and the netroots certainly deserve some of the credit and/or blame.
May 23, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shakespeare or Dostoyevsky he ain't.
That's just hurtful.
But don't worry, Michael, Shakespeare *and* Dostoyevsky (I'll go with the plebian spelling, matches my own high degree of plebitudity) you are.
May 23, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, no I'm not. Nobody is.
Except Shakespeare and Dosto(y)evsky, I suppose. No, wait, Shakespeare was Francis Bacon. Dang.
May 23, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
But I thought Bacon was Shakespeare. Was Shakespeare a ham?
May 23, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was Shakespeare a ham? Are you kidding? You haven't lived until you've heard his version of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds."
No, wait, that was Shatner. You know, the guy who wrote The Brothers Karamazov.
May 23, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention his rollicking Death Waits for Smirnov Man.
May 23, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Smirnov was the engineering guy on the bridge of the Enterprise, right? Who wrote The Cherry Orchard in his spare time? This is getting confusing.
May 23, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Getting confusing?
You had me there way back when you told me that Mrs. Shakespeare (or was it Mrs. Bacon?) had been calling out the wrong name all those years.
May 23, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is any of that supposed to be witty? As was just being discussed, the problem with snark is the tendency towards smug posturing as substitute for real insight.
Berube fancies himself a rather witty fellow. I find his "wit" incredibly smug with an obsequious need to reduce issues to simple dualities affirming his readers. It's not that different from the cracks Limbaugh or such make for their audience.
May 23, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
kosmo, you are being a humor troll, a youthful, weak vintage of concern troll in which you take on the role as Suitability Judge for the entire forum. That's bad enough. But you are also being a coward, unwilling to let go and engage.
There, direct, humorless and snark-free enough for you?
May 23, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, what you're doing, that's concern trolling, and hypocritical.
May 23, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stop wasting my pixels, both of you.
May 24, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you Oh Goddess
May 27, 2008 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
an obsequious need to reduce issues to simple dualities affirming his readers
Obsequious, obsequious . . . hmmm, let me think. Now, I know there's a line from The Princess Bride that people on the Internets like to use in cases like this. But for the life of me, I can't remember what it is. Inconceivable!
Seriously, pal, now you're interjecting yourself into some harmless little banter between me and shoeless here in order to complain that I didn't address you properly in re Kos/Armando. Give it a rest already. You'll be glad you did!
Whew. Now I understand how those DKos threads turn into what a savvy Sadly, No! commenter once called "a big box of angry flakes that never runs out."
May 24, 2008 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really want to know what Chiat, Klein & Weisberg's reply to this would be. Even though it would probably annoy me to no end.
I know I probably never will. But maybe this will get enough attention that at least one of them will feel forced to respond...?
May 23, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think they'll just say that I misquoted them, Stephen. Because I'm not a real journalist and all.
May 23, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
This behavior of the loony left locosphere is suddenly explained if you just imagine that Israel is NOT the fifty-first state.
May 23, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
What else were the net root supposed to do? The only choices in the primary were Lamont and Joe. The only choice in the General were Lamont, joe and the joke of a Repub.
Sure a lot of people were overly optimistic about Lamont's chances, but that didn't cause Joe to win. He won becasue the Repub's threw their guy under the bus and supported him in mass which combined with the Dems still loyal to him put him over the top.
It isn't like there was some Democrat stronger than Lamont waiting int he wings to support.
May 23, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
What else were the net root supposed to do?
Well, Eric, kozmic already answered that one:
If only Kos had had the sense to do this! He had the power. He just didn't have the vision.
May 23, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on, that's childish and transparent.
Kos can't have it both ways. He can't be an organizer and disclaim any responsibility. When a person advocates for an action they also have to take some responsibility for outcomes.
May 23, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, let's walk through this with the complexity it deserves, kozmic. You're saying that when Ned Lamont announced his candidacy, Kos should have withheld his support, found another challenger for Lieberman, and then should have "delivered the death blow and removed him from office"? Seriously?
Are you familiar with the way elections work in this country? The netroots don't create candidates. Really, we don't. Now, Armando may have been a lousy prognosticator, but that doesn't make Kos responsible for Lieberman's re-election and his support for McCain.
May 23, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. You seem to be compelled to reduce everything to straw men you can rail against. Are you just compulsively smug?
Again, what I'm saying is that the NetRoots, including Kos, should have been more realistic about the race, and communicated that to readers from the beginning. I and others shouldn't have had to tell Armando he was full of shit. Kos should have been doing that on his own site. And in general the netroots need to avoid unrealistic pandering.
The options, from best case to worst case, should always have been laid out clearly. Part of leadership is communicating that and promoting a long term movement based in reality. Elevating people, not just pandering to them.
I think they're actually doing that more now, which is a good thing. But Kos has a radical pandering streak that's sometimes counter productive.
By comparison the criticism I'd make of TPM in the past was josh tended to be a bit conservative and follow the Washington establishment, which is how he got hoodwinked on WMD.
The MSM is of course totally sold out to the corporate mindset and basically whores.
I'm just saying, everybody has their weaknesses, their audience, their bias, and bad tendencies, and can hopefully be aware of them.
White washing it, or reducing it to simplistic dualities where the Blogs were all right, and MSM was all wrong, and forgetting mistakes, won't help prevent them next time or ultimately improve on the MSM.
We don't need smug bubbled bloggers replacing the smug bubbled MSM.
Imo the hallmarks of successful movements include pragmatism and strategic planning with an informed base being fully aware of and elevated by that vision. I'd give MLK's leadership in civil rights, or Gandhi, as examples. I think Obama exemplifies that tradition.
Imo the hallmarks of failed movements include frothing emotionalism, pandering, and smug confidence. I'd list Malcolm X and groups like "Code Pink" as examples, with Hillary, Bush, and McCain all examples of that school of politics.
Oh, and here's my snark: I'll await you once again reducing that to a smug one liner.
May 23, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
btw, I do appreciate your humor sometimes. You can be witty. And we agree overall politically.
It just sucks you're also simplistic and smug so often. Which must be one of the roots-of-all-evil in the MSM. Their other problems, like vast wealth, you'd probably like to have. So pardon me for not seeing you as quite the witty and self righteous champion of goodness against the evil of the MSM as you seem to envision yourself.
Better? Yes. Likely to become the MSM given half a chance? I think probably so.
And again, if the BLOGs had been more careful, more honest with readers, and managed expectations better, then we could all be smug now and say the MSM got it all wrong and the BLOGs all right.
Going forward, Obama can win, and should win, though it will be difficult, and will require elevating the electorate with good information. In general on issue advocacy blogs need to learn from mistakes like predicting Lamont was a shoo-in.
May 23, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, as I say below, you seem to be a good egg, kozmik. But you really do need to get over your blogspat with Armando. Those of us who don't care about what he said on DKos aren't being smug or simplistic. We just have lives, that's all. But yes, about Lamont's chances, he was wrong. You were right. Move on with your life now.
May 24, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hindsight is always 20/20. The problem was the Republicans had a walk over candidate. It was easy for the Republican party to throw their guy under the bus. The help Lieberman received from the professional pundit class just helped. We shouldn't beat ourselves up about Lieberman. What is done is done. If Obama wins and the Democrats gain a few seats in the Senate this election, Lieberman is toast. He knows it. His only hope for the future is to go all in for a winning McCain and reap a cabinet post.
May 24, 2008 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't even know how to steal a joke, do you Berubé? You're clearly too weak to defend America. (And thanks. The shout-out was very nice, albeit unnecessary.)
May 23, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't even know how to steal a joke, do you Berubé?
No, I don't, Ari -- and you would think, with all the practice I've had over the years. . . .
You're clearly too weak to defend America.
I resent that! I added the bit about "Eschatros," which I think sends exactly the right signal to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the guy who is the Supreme Vizier and Absolute Ruler of Iran and who is funding al-Qaeda in Iraq.
May 23, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I seem to have misplaced an accent mark in my original comment. That's how American I am, Bérubé. I just did it correctly that time to show you that I can -- not because I care for your fancy name.
May 23, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude there is no substance in your post to repsond too. Sometimes the only way to confront lunacy is well placed snark.
As far as the alternate uinvers the Left supposedly inhabits lets look at the major claims they were making during the 60s:
The Gulf of Tonkin rresolution was based on lies.
We were secretly sending ground troops into Laos and Cambodia.
We were secretly bombing Laos and Cambodia.
Police were beating up and shooting unarmed war protestors.
To I need to go on?
Vietnam did go communist and dominos didn't fall in the rest of Asia.
Nixon did secretly meet with South Vietnamese leaders before the '68 election and destroy LBJ's negotiations (talk about treason during war time!)
The Nixon White House did illegally wiretap just about anyone they could.
Want some more?
May 23, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is in response to my friend "offensivetoyou," I imagine?
May 23, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have no sense of context sir, because you don't like your own country.
How were our enemies behaving and how should we have confronted them? You really believe the communists were nice guys, that there was some clear line separating movements of national liberation from the conflict of the great powers...or that leaders of the national movements were more decent than their opponents and certainly more decent than us?
With the benefit of hindsight you criticize unmercifully. This on a thread where lefties are begging for forgiveness for their errors. Who the hell do you think you are...that you are so sure you could have done better?
McEnroe asks whether anyone believes that Bush-Cheney and Co would have demonstrated the same restraint as Kennedy. What hogwash! Both Kennedy and Khruschev were belligerent as hell...and their advisors even more so. It was sheer luck that a nuclear confrontation was avoided...to Castro's eternal sorrow.
You think you know who was right and who was wrong. You don't know anything.
May 23, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "Alternate Universe" in your dateline is wholly erroneous. The fact is, the events you describe are ideally inconceivable; as such, there is no possible world -- no "alternate universe" -- in which they obtain.
May 23, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
@metaandmeta
Alternate realities? What the hell are you babbling about? Lieberman says the modern Left believes American policy and culture are responsible for most of the trouble in the world, in contrast to the older Democratic tradition which thought we were a beacon on the hill. No different than competing explanations for any other phenomenon.
May 23, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
@offensivetoyou
Not every comment to this post is directed to your dopey ass.
May 24, 2008 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
allball's right. My comment was a joke intended for philosophy geeks only.
May 26, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only possible worlds which are IMPOSSIBLE are ones that contain a contradiction.
May 24, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. That's what the village doesn't get... I can forgive in an instant. The first good-faith offer of bipartisanship from the GOP, I'll take it. But what always drove me nuts is the condescension to people who were right. I can see how people got it wrong, but what I can't understand is how they arrogantly continued to pretend anyone who was right wasn't worthy of including in the conversation.
The unbelievable condescension we endured for being the few brave enough to question the prevailing wisdom was bad enough, but what is unforgivable is continuing to pretend we don't deserve a seat at the table, or were right for the wrong reasons.
I have forgiven Sullivan long ago because he figured it out. Josh Marshall figured it out. Kevin Drum figured it out. Hillary's still pretending she was right about her vote all along. Tom Friedman would rather have another war than admit being wrong on this one.
May 23, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would agree with that. I'd also point out group-think and irrational belief are universal problems.
Over at DKos Armando and many like him were ready to burn people at the stake for suggesting Lamont was likely to lose. It's not just Armando, it can be a widespread sort of smug identity politics and PCness, and has often been a failure of the left and very self destructive.
If Berube would have admitted that, and pointed out how blogs are better for having learned from their mistakes or such, and then hoisted clowns like Klein on his own petard, he'd have more credibility and encourage honesty among readers.
May 23, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Armando and many like him were ready to burn people at the stake for suggesting Lamont was likely to lose.
Armando is always ready to burn people at the stake, kozmik. You should know that by now. (You should see him go after Hillary's critics! That boy takes no prisoners, and brooks no ambiguities.) But the idea that I have to admit that Armando can be a bit of a tool, simply in order to make a point about the foolish attacks on Ned Lamont mounted by some of the most prominent "liberal" pundits in the country (or in order to burnish my own "credibility" with anyone), is really quite silly.
Seriously, on balance, you seem like a good egg. So stop thinking that DKos has so much control over the fortunes of the Democratic party, and stop taking people like Armando so seriously. Your little blogspat with him two years ago, whatever it consisted of, just isn't that important.
May 24, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
As for Colin McEnroe, he doesn't impress me. Why don't you try reading "American's Secret War" by George Friedman and "The War of the World" by Niall Ferguson.
I spent 30 years in a job which involved crowd control. I can tell you there are plenty of occasions where one has to fight. Talking doesn't cut it. When is a matter of judgment and that will always be a matter of dispute...
...but there's a difference between policy dispute and treason. When one adopts a position that one's culture and government are the source of all evil and must be destroyed I'd say it's the latter.
May 23, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 23, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 23, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
offensiveyou says:
"You can't always reason with hostile people..."
Earlier in this thread you claimed Berube didn't understand irony; I suggest you read the above quote then look at your screenname.
May 23, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
@JohnW1141
You're another one who can't read. He himself said he didn't understand Internet irony in his first reply to me. Yeah? Give me the undistorted meaning. @steambadger I haven't the slightest idea but all the posters who think that America is a corrupt plutocracy whose selfish lust for wealth and power is responsible for most of the world's suffering are good candidates.May 23, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
@JohnW1141
It doesn't matter, does it? My statement remains true even if I'm the hostile person and you can't reason with me.The thing is I'm honest about it while you, in your disgusting dishonesty, would call in a "therapist" to "treat" my "anti-social" tendencies.
May 23, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Offensivetoyou says:
"You're another one who can't read. He himself said he didn't understand Internet irony in his first reply to me."
and you replied:
"Since you don't understand irony you mean what you say. Unfortunately, it doesn't make sense"
ergo, you agreed he didn't understand irony just as you don't as I pointed out in the above post:
Offensivetoyou says:
"You can't always reason with hostile people..."
JohnW1141 replied:
Earlier in this thread you claimed Berube didn't understand irony; I suggest you read the above quote then look at your screenname.
As I said, you don't understand irony either.
heh heh heh
May 23, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou said:
"It doesn't matter, does it? My statement remains true even if I'm the hostile person and you can't reason with me."
If you're hostile, as your screenname and posts readily show, and I can't reason with you, why should I put any value on anything you say is truth?
May 23, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
@JohnW1141
I didn't "agree" that he didn't understand irony. I took him at his word.
As for you you're about as clever as a rock. You found it ironic that a man named "offensive" would complain that it's not always possible to reason with hostile people - when obviously (to you) I was the hostile person who was not amenable to reason. Don't you understand that it doesn't matter whether I am the solution or the problem? The point is that reason does not solve all problems, that sometimes you must fight if you don't want to yield.
Well, now I've explained twice and I'm sure you still won't get it. You're the same as Berube; ordinary guys with delusions of intelligence.
May 23, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou,
heh heh heh.
Let me try this one more time;
The irony is your screen name and your comment: "You can't always reason with hostile people..."
The screen name "offensivetoyou" is hostile in itself. Oh, as are the insults you fling aound so readily.
May 23, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The screenname is OFFENSIVE TO YOU. Which is far from plain old OFFEN SIVE.
To a homophobe a homosexual is an offensive character. That's an "offensive to you" example. Whether or not a homosexual is offensive tout court is another matter.
I'm afraid that you are not going to be able to dismiss Offensivetoyou with those kinds of childish misrepresentations.
Offensive is post Enlightment or even counter Enlightment. The position is not without merit. It's opposite: that with reason and good will everything can be solved might (sadly) not be true.
May 24, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
The idea that playground rules scale to international relations is what got us into the mess we're in now. Some of us grew up and discovered a more complex and subtle world.
(I know, more "foolish snobbery," right?)
May 23, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
@Mad Dog Rackham
Yes, more foolish snobbery.
Playground rules do scale to international relations (but the consequences of good or bad judgment are much more serious) and the mess we're in now is the mess humanity has always been in.
May 23, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm... and who, precisely, would you say is the Democratic Party's leading exemplar of this position?
May 23, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I spent 30 years in a job which involved crowd control. I can tell you there are plenty of occasions where one has to fight. . . . Ocean lifeguard in Santa Monica Bay.
OK, I win the TPM Best Comment Thread ever award. Because I'm being lectured to about why the Iraq War was necessary from a guy who bases his foreign policy expertise on his experience as a lifeguard.
Bein' an ocean lifeguard is serious business, no doubt about it. But it doesn't actually give you a firm basis from which to judge the merits of a pre-emptive war. Put down your Niall Ferguson, old boy, and read some Michael Walzer.
May 24, 2008 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, me 3:05 was directed at him, not sure why my posts don't thread correctly.
May 23, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
@berube
Criticizing particular AIPAC policies is quite legitimate. Claiming that it has too much power over American foreign policy is the same as saying Jews have too much power because they have too much money. Classic anti-semitism.
As for vile, you define it. You haven't been able to say two words to me without personal insult. Someone has brought you up very badly, telling you that you're a lot smarter and more capable than you actually are.
May 23, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Offensive to you said:
"Claiming that it has too much power over American foreign policy is the same as saying Jews have too much power because they have too much money."
offensivetoyou,
I see you've taken up the tactic Joe Lieberman uses; apply a distorted meaning to what your opponent says or does so you can feel more justified in your attack.
May 23, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Criticizing particular AIPAC policies is quite legitimate. Claiming that it has too much power over American foreign policy is the same as saying Jews have too much power because they have too much money. Classic anti-semitism.
OK, this is about as stupid a remark as anything I've ever read on the Internets. So by this logic, criticizing AIPAC as a lobby is tantamount to believing that Jews control world finance and the entertainment industry. And that they mix the blood of Christian children into their unleavened bread. (You did say "classic anti-semitism," right?) You really are unhinged, friendo.
More importantly, your willingness to toss around the term "anti-semitism" in this way is a profound disservice to the millions of Israelis who believe that the warmongering fulminations of Norman Podhoretz and Daniel Pipes are not in their best interests.
As for vile, you define it.
Um you do realize that you just said, "vile? I am not you are you are you are no backsies" and then accused me of incivility, right? Your profile says that Free Republic is one of your favorite blogs. That's why I suggested you go back there. But then, your profile also says you're 62, and from your comments here you seem more like 12. That's not a good thing.
Someone has brought you up very badly, telling you that you're a lot smarter and more capable than you actually are.
Well, that certainly puts me in my place! You are much smarter and more civil than I am.
May 24, 2008 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
@berube
What do you mean by "
It's a legal lobbying group and does what lobbies do - tries to influence government officials.
What Rosenberg and other Lefties do is claim that it is too powerful, that it's too good at what it does...and that what it does is act against American interests and for Israeli interests, or even against Israeli interests and for Likud interests. Many, or I would say most, who argue this way do believe that Jews control world finance and the entertainment industry...and a non-negligible number of influential Muslims actually do advance the blood-libel, Protocol of the Elders of Zion arguments.
I don't do a disservice to those who disagree with Daniel Pipes and Norman Podhoretz...unless they do what Rosenberg and other Lefties do all too often; claim they know better than the Israeli electorate and try to get the United States to force their views on that electorate.
Surprising that such experience might be more relevant than degrees in pretentious bullshit from Columbia and Virginia (or wherever)...but it is. That aside from your gross and obvious distortion of my actual position and qualifications. Of course I realize it. I was just throwing your own words back at you Don't like it, do you? Yes. I am.May 24, 2008 4:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
May 24, 2008 4:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
offensivetoyou says, (to berube, who said; Your profile says that Free Republic is one of your favorite blogs. That's why I suggested you go back there)
"But my profile says that Free Republic is only one of my favorite blogs, the other two being Comment is Free and TPMCafe. A perfect example of your complete and utter dishonesty. "
For one who often accuses others of not being able to read, Berube's post was entirely accurate, not dishonest. Berube said Free Republic "is one of your favorite blogs".
Take note of the words "one of".
heh heh heh
May 24, 2008 7:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, of all the trolls I've baited -- and I've baited some of the pros -- o2u has been one of the easiest. He snaps at absolutely everything, and understands absolutely nothing. Then he trots out the predictable insults and predictably complains that I insult him. I know it's boring and routine in a sense, but hell -- I was just hangin' around yesterday afternoon and looking for mischief, and he was only too willing to provide some. The bit about how his experience as a lifeguard makes him a judge of foreign affairs was unexpected, though, and a nice bit of comedy gold.
I only wish he'd said "I used to be a Democrat, but after 9/11 I realized the Democrat party believes that American culture and government are the source of all evil and must be destroyed" in one handy comment instead of in forty.
May 24, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
@berube
Reduced to agreeing with complete morons, I see. My, how academic standards have fallen.
May 24, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reduced to arguing with complete morons.
FYT, as they say on "blogs."
May 26, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
o2u just made Michael's point for him. Thanks for playing, offensive!
As you've noticed, here is offensive's MO, repeated ad nauseam on this board (I guess freepers love to troll their other "favorite" boards):
1) Repeat every Nixon/Rove/Atwater-inspired talking point about "America-hating leftist intellectual snobs" ever spewed over the last 40 years, with no substantiation.
2) When you disagree with him, start name-calling.
3) Repeat and escalate step (2), in an endless loop.
May 26, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I don't think that anyone would deny that money IS (political/social) power.
If you grant the premise that there is such a thing as having too much money and If you grant the assumption that Jews do have too much money, then it follows deductively that Jews have too much power.
That's not anitsemitism, that's logic.
Now all the wizzards here will say that I'm antisemitic, when all I'm trying to show you people is the logic of what you are saying.
Maybe you want to deny that money is power. Maybe you weant to deny that there is such a thing as having too much money or too much power but you cannot deny that IF you accept those premises the conclusion folows deductively.
What does that mean?
It means that there is no possible world in which the argument is NOT valid.
The form of the argument is as follows
1) M = P
2)there is such a thing as having too much M
3) x has too much M
_______________________________________________
Therefore x has too much P
May 24, 2008 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you grant the premise that there is such a thing as having too much money and If you grant the assumption that Jews do have too much money
Oy. Why grant such a thing? Jews have too much money? Really? Compared to whom, exactly? Seriously, Andrew, the way to deal with this one is to deny the major premise. You can certainly criticize AIPAC without doing any silly calculations about how much money Jewish-Americans have as a group.
May 24, 2008 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
oy why grant such a thing
Michael
I grant nothing. I made a conditional statement.
So if I say "if pigs could fly and If all flying creatures had PhDs, then All pigs would have PhDs. I did not granting anything. It is a conditional statement. All of logic is based on what follows from what. That is if the premises were to be true the conclusion would necessarily follow. (Note the subjunctive contrary to fact "were").
My remark is directed at these people who like Offensive seem to accept all the premises but maintain that drawing the logical conclusion from accepting all those premises is "antisemitic" or what not.
Not sure as to your major and minor premise distinction here. My argument is not in the form of a categorical syllogism so I don't see how it applies.
May 24, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate to burst your bubble, but your standard Aristotelian logic is just one possible logic. Alternate logics can be constructed denying any of the major theorems of standard logic. You may say they are just fantasy logics, but at one time alternate geometries were just fantasy geometries. Possible worlds are much stranger than you think.
May 26, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, there is Aristotelian Categorical Syllogism, then there is the propositional calculus, then there is quantified logic, then there are the modal logics, then there is deontic logic, then there is even quantum logic (which leaves out the law of excluded middle) and so on.
Possible World Semantics (developed by Kripke) for modal logic is probably what you are trying to refer to. The possible world semantic for an uninterpreted modal system is not a logic but an Interpretation of a formal system: a MODLE.
You are not bursting my bubble only showing me that you are just another pretentious fool making it obvious that you think that looking up "alternative" logics in Wikepedia or some such is relevant to the discussion at hand.
The greatest virtue of any thinking person is to admit when you don't know something. But human pride is loath to admit such a thing which leads people like you to make fools out of themselves in public. On the internets it is very common.
May 27, 2008 3:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dangit Michael Bérubé, this is just sloppy journalism!
That Joe Klein quote is incomplete! Here is what he actually said:
"... Because I was clearly so clueless on Lamont-Lieberman that I really need to check myself before I wreck myself. Now I wonder whether my columns on FISA were any good, or whether I was just huffing too much paint back then, and you know... making stuff up."
Get your sources straight mister!
May 23, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
metaandmeta,
Were you replying to my post? if so You went over my head.
I didn't lay out a timeline. I was responding to Offensive who argued that the anti war left lived in an alternate reality. I was listing a bunch of the things the left argued that were factually correct, the point is it is Offisive and his ilk living in an aletrante universe.
May 23, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've always been such a sucker for snark. I had to read it twice.
Michael, that was a great post. It actually made me feel a little wistful, then I couldn't stop laughing. Wouldn't it be nice if just once the idiot pundits acknowledged that the left was right all along about the war?
I know, I know, fat chance. But thanks for the laugh.
May 23, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the alternate reality of offensivetoyou, "The Left" lives in alternate reality.
As I was climbing down from Empyrean to empirical, I checked what is happening with good old Zell Miller. Actually, it is hard to tell. He vanished! Is there some mutual exclusion principle, giving place to only one "full Zell" in a given time? If so, Lieberman serves an important function.
Someone worried that Clinton can "play Lieberman", but this is impossible, because Lieberman plays "full Zell", and this land can fit only one.
offensivetoyou: "Alternate realities? What the hell are you babbling about? Lieberman says the modern Left believes American policy and culture are responsible for most of the trouble in the world, in contrast to the older Democratic tradition which thought we were a beacon on the hill. No different than competing explanations for any other phenomenon."
I would call it "alternate un-realities". If you ask me, America is responsible for more trouble in the world than most, as befits a country that is larger than most. As far as beacons are concerned, some point to save harbors, and some are lit by the wreckers, hence caution is necessary.
And when Lieberman writes that we should respond to whatever with a show of unity and strength, and probably vigilance and resolve, (also, as David Brooks nicely put it, "steeling ourselves for certain necessary atrocities"), I have this feeling of tinnitus, and this is what rings in my ear "Ein Volk! Ein Reich! Ein Fuehrer!".
May 23, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
@berube
I'll try one more time. Take a look at what Piotr Berman just posted. Is he representative of "the Left"? I think so and Lieberman agrees.
May 23, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You got me there, offensivetoyou. Piotr is definitely representative of the entire American left, and his comment on this thread totally justifies Lieberman's support for McCain, as well as mainstream liberal pundits' support for Lieberman in 2006. Though it took me all day to see the light, I bow before your superior logic.
Thank you for being patient with me.
May 23, 2008 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
@berube
You've had this argument with David Horowitz...and your "irony" is dull and heavy-handed, without wit charm, originality. I don't know whether I'm more disappointed by that or the weakness of your thought.
May 24, 2008 3:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, now, O2U, that comment was the weakest one in the entire chain. The rest of your trolling was absolutely first-rate, and I say that as a connoisseur. What verve, what energy! Man, you were all over the map, an absolute avalanche of non-sequitur. The entire blog smells like herring now.
May 24, 2008 7:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Michael
With all due respect to your subtle understanding of offensivetoyou, when he said he learned crowd control as a life guard he was spoofing you, which, apparently he succeeded in doing unless you come back with one of those "well I was ueber spoofing him" routines in which case he will have succeeded once again in drawing you out into the realm of the absurd.
May 24, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew, you are so weird. I love you, man.
May 26, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the humor and the follow up. Oh, and I irony my shirts every morning before I put them on.
It doesn't help much, though ... Lie-berman still is my Senator for 4 more years. The good news is, my other Senator is a Dodd.
Thanks.
mp
May 23, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rec'd! Another new avatar and another wonderfully droll post.
May 23, 2008 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't had time to do the research, but I'd be willing to bet that a lot of these "liberal" pundits who argued for Lieberman over Lamont were the same "liberal" pundits who initially supported Bush on Iraq. It's nice that they're now apologizing for their mistakes, but what we really need is for them to stop making those mistakes.
May 24, 2008 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink