[Now posted at Hot Air, with a shortened title]
Search
Archive Calendar
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |
Archives
Categories
- A Government That Can Force You to Buy Health Insurance Can Make You Do Anything (3)
- a protein wisdom philosophy primer (3)
- academics (25)
- armadillo (8)
- Friday Fiction 100 Word Challenge (51)
- from the protein wisdom conceptual series (136)
- identity politics (33)
- If Republicans Win the Senate in 2014 (1)
- in which celebraties comment on current events (67)
- language / intentionalism (88)
- legal (6)
- My brief conversations with inanimate objects (130)
- NSA / FISA (46)
- One Term to Serve, the 2012 Revival (6)
- Overheard in a Fallujah bunker (27)
- Poems from 196x, Revised by the Ghost of Richard Brauti (27)
- protein wisdom's DNC coverage (30)
- protein wisdom's RNC coverage (29)
- protein wisdom: the movie Lists (20)
- Provocateurism (16)
- real-time empirical observations (51)
- red pills found behind the sofa cushions (42)
- Scenes from my driveway (61)
- Talking back to 80s music (41)
- The Martha Stewart Chronicles (58)
- The protein wisdom interviews (10)
- The protein wisdom original poems (142)
- Uncategorized (20,046)
- Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, abridged (34)
Recent Comments
- In The Mailbox: 02.28.23 (Afternoon Edition) : The Other McCain on Hey, longtime pw readers…
- In The Mailbox: 12.23.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll truly IS a sad, embittered psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- In The Mailbox: 07.18.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
Uh oh. No thoughts?
*clap* *clap* *clap*
I enjoyed every sentence.
Since I’ve only just read the first four paragraphs let me just say, Ha! Here’s what I posted this morning at PP in response to Patterico’s quoted remark.
Well said.
Kinda brought to mind that game in elementary school where the teacher would whisper a story to one person and then say “pass it on”. That person would then tell another and another until the it got to the last person in class who would then repeat the story in front of the entire class, usually to much laughter as it was mangled beyond belief. Basically what I read from your post is that it is retarded to turn over our story to the last guy in the class who hates our freakin guts. I do not have your gift with words however and that is simply my interpretation.
I think the Bennet example is a perfect illustration of the left’s propensity to willfully misinterpret, no matter how carefully the argument is crafted. Well done Jeff.
Punch up purposes only:
Thank you, Jeff.
Well said and well written!
Effective and well written. I’d hoped for less Rush Rehash, but I see you need it to make your caught-in-amber point.
Very nicely done. And I mean just that.
Looking forward to the Hot Air version.
But Jeff, Obama is all about “da science” now. Language smanguage, you are so left brain:
It is by will alone I set the economy in motion. It is by the juice of sapho that thoughts acquire speed, the lips acquire stains, the stains become a warning. It is by will alone I set the economy in motion. Tim Geithner
Fuck yeah!
Very well done. The true context is not Rush Limbaugh, it is thoese who misrepresent him (intentionally) from the MSM and the Democratic Party and do not get called on it. We should flat out call them on this every time, because they do it all the time. That is the beef between you and Patterico, and I think Patterico is starting to actually get it.
Well crap, Jeff . We need time to digest.
Jeff, that’s epic! 5/5 stars.
— and, even more frankly, it is indicative of a political strategy that amounts to conceding loss, with the concomitant hope that perhaps we’ll lose more slowly.
Exactly. This, to me, is the main point of this whole kerfuffle. When one side is not participating in the debate/conversation honestly, the best you can hope for -by playing by their rules – is to simply lose more slowly.
Which is why the next reporter who asks a prominent Republican figure whether or not he or she agrees with Limbaugh’s “hope†that “the President fails†should be met with a firm reminder that the reporter has left out an important part of the context, one that effectively alters the suggestive…
This is pretty much why I disagreed/refused to play with the A or B scenario Patterico threw out.
Jeff hit upon something of minor note that I’ve been thinking about for some time, namely, that the tactics of the left are not going to change until they cease to pay dividends. If we really want to change the direction of our nation and culture, it is incumbent upon us to make the other side hurt when they move. There need to be consequences. Any political action that does not bring this element into its thought flirts with dilletantism.
Jeff, haven’t been commenting much since the birth of my second Puckling, but couldn’t not respond to this. It’s outstanding. I agree wholeheartedly with Big D at #7; the Bill Bennett example of the left’s bad faith is as good as it gets.
What seems very clear to me is that those of us who would stand up for conservatism, or classical liberalism, need to speak plainly and rebut, relentlessly, those who would bastardize our words and purposely misinterpret them for their own purposes. For some reason, politicians — heck, even the head of the RNC — don’t seem to have the intestinal fortitude to do so.
I’ve seen a better case made for conservatism here by Jeff and his commenters than I’ve ever heard from a politician (except Ronald Reagan). Which is at the same time heartening (because I know there must be more of us out there) and maddening (how in the hell does Arlen Fucking Specter keep getting elected)? Meh.
Bravissimo!
It would be useful, would it not, if you were to provide some examples of effective rejoinders to dishonest representations? I tried to do it here, but you could maybe recruit someone to play the dishonest hack reporter and you could be the confident pol who calls out the dishonest hack reporter on his dishonest hackitude.
And put it on your blip.tv account or summat. Videos being more effective than essays for some. Just sayin’
How long ’til a Leftist screams RACIST about the Curious Geore reference?
Well, that link didn’t work.
Try this one, though you gotta scroll down.
That’s it. That’s what I wanted to read. Maybe now they’ll realize that what they’ve been arguing about isn’t what the argument’s about.
And this:
To say that “words should be interpreted the way a reasonable person would interpret them†is to open texts up to whatever people can reasonably do with an authors marks, which, while this can prove enjoyable and even useful or enlightening in some way, has the dangerous effect of conflating the intentions of those doing the decoding with the intentions of those who did the original encoding.
You made almost this exact same statement in answer to a question I posted in the comments about three years ago. It really helped me wrap my head around how intentionalism can relate to politics. If I can understand it, it’s about two steps up from Yo Gabba Gabba. That means our braniac brethren have no excuses.
Anyone who has ever found themselves raging at some new manifestation of identity politics; on TV, in the workplace or in “Education” should seriously not have a problem understanding what we’re all on about. I’m glad you’re there to explain it.
Also, Jeff posts the essay at 11:45 (by my clock), then at 12:02 wonders why no comments.
Duud. No speed-readers here.
One point I have not seen clearly and explicitly articulated by Limbaugh – or anyone else for that matter – as a motive to desire Obama’s economic/social engineering policy failure is the belief that these policies will eventually fail. The longer and more drawn out the failure, the greater the damage done to the economy and the American people – average Americans (including some women and minorities) will be hardest hit.
So, the argument can take a utilitarian bent and need not morph into anything resembling retreat or equivocation.
Limbaugh is a smart, eloquent (and presumably clean) guy. I’d like to see him tailor the same message for different audiences. The ability to “shift dialects†and stay philosophically aligned speaks to the strength, breadth and depth of classic liberalism.
We need spokesmen who can speak clearly and with obvious intent to any audience – whether it be low, middle or high-brow.
The argument. Would that still be the argument, Royce? Or would that argument be about something else, in other words, would that argument have moved on from “the argument” that Jeff has been trying to get his iterlocuters (among others) to finally take up, lo these many days past?
interlocuters, sorry
Good job. I enjoyed it tremendously and remain depressed mightily that it need be said.
And will need be said, again and again and again.
I’d like to see him tailor the same message for different audiences. The ability to “shift dialects†and stay philosophically aligned speaks to the strength, breadth and depth of classic liberalism.
Kinda defeats the purpose, methinks.
I followed the dust-up with Patterico with interest. Actually, it took considerable time yesterday to follow and digest it all. To call it a dust-up isn’t quite correct–Jeff makes a fine point about the precision of language and what Rush actually said and I agree with him. On the other hand, it sure seems to have taken a lot of effort on the part of two people who basically agree on most things to pin down an issue that is not only lost on most people but probably not understood by all of those that need to be aware of what is fed to them by a shameless media. The argument with Patterico was played out to the choir and not to those duped by the media and more’s the pity. I didn’t much care for the dichotomous choice in the poll at Patterico’s in the first place and for that reason did not participate but I can appreciate what Patterico does and says and don’t fault him quite as much as you seem to, despite his argument. But Jeff, I give you 5 stars just like baxtrice, plus kudos and my admiration for an intellect far superior to my own. I don’t have the energy to be as precise and insightful as yourself. My bad, I guess. It was all a lot of work on your part (and Patterico too, for that matter) and hopefully this will shine a bit more bright light on the dishonesty of the leftist tools who disservice us all. The Hot Air edition should give it even greater legs.
Very well said. Like, I expected anything less? This is why you’re needed in the forefront of any real change. Outlaw, indeed.
The synecdoche of Rush being the Republican Party what nominated a cowardly very not-conservative squish like McCain is really dishonest I think. If Rush had been the head of the Republican Party then that piece of shit socialist and his skeezey woman wouldn’t be defiling our White House right now.
Jeff. This is one great piece of writing. I have a pretty good mind and, after reading and re-reading certain parts, I realized two things.
1) I was able to pick up the crescendo element of your logic.
2) It takes a mind, willing and patient, to truly grasp the power of the argument.
I hope there are many willing and patient mind owners in your audience.
Related, at neo-neo’s. I’d tell Jeff it was great, too, but I’ve already done so in an email.
Thumbs up.
Something to note, which I didn’t pick up on in my first read through of Paterrico’s writeup was “reasonable” termonolgy. It explains quite a bit actually. “Reasonable” is the fallback position of the law when a case is being presented to a jury. In a negligence case, if there is a duty, the question is whether the tortfeasor completed that duty “reasonably”. Reasonable becomes whatever a jury of the persons peers decides it means- a jury deliberation encompasses all kinds of bias, including socio-economic, race, gender, financial circumstances and bias (or lack thereof) against the offending party. So my impression, based on Jeff’s analysis and Pat’s words is that he’s trying to use “reasonable”, a legal factual standard, as the manner in which to judge interpretation of language.
Assuming that’s what he’s doing, its … well reasonable from the standpoint of a lawyer arguing his case. A jury deciding the reasonableness of the conduct of a torfeasor will be presented with evidence for and against, usually over a few days, and THEN the jury will attempt to collectively agree on the reasonbleness of the conduct, based on testimony, applicable standards, documents and arguments of counsel. Its a process. Where I think “reasonable” can’t apply is in a situation like Limbaugh’s, where he has only seconds to explain what he means, either before or after the words come out of his mouth. The listener absords the information and at that moment, should decide, without any other evidence, what the speaker is saying. Instead, people here a 20 sec sound blurb and look for more context but the context is all in the words as spoken. People who don’t understand this then look for ANY other context which helps them understand the intent of the speaker- in Rush’s case, a person will assume his conservative bias and hyperbolic nature dictate the meaning of what was said, even when this might not be the case. There is no trial or jury of peers, just Rush saying what he thinks and others interpreting, based on the very limited context and or information available to them. There is no way to determine if something said is reasonable, if the evidence is insufficient and it was either heard or passed along out of context.
I’m not sure that made sense but I’m done typing and need a cupcake.
Dan Collins,
That is one brilliant link.
Typical Stupid Reporter Question to GOP person:
Do you agree with Rush saying, “I hope Obama fails.”
Perfect Answer (said sympathetically and with a warm smile):
Well, the question the American People are asking is, “Has Obama
failed so far?”
Sadly, the stock market and growing number of jobless indicate that he has.
but I’ve already done so in an email.
Yeah? Well, I drove to his house, washed his car and helped carry his books home.
nyah.
Which is why the next reporter who asks a prominent Republican figure whether or not he or she agrees with Limbaugh’s “hope†that “the President fails†should be met with a firm reminder that the reporter has left out an important part of the context, one that effectively alters the suggestiveness of the question, and that aside from such fundamental dishonesty, Rush Limbaugh is not the head of the party, nor is he an elected leader, so why on earth would I presume to answer for something he said?
That is a pure 24k nugget of gold.
I love these points, Jeff. Journelist should not be allowed to treat the news like a freshman art interpration class. You aren’t here to tell me what the painting means to you. Your here to report the facts and provide context.
Nice. Wish I could play, but have to interact with meat people now.
Have fun and play nice. Remember, it’s the ugly people that are “the man” these days.
OUTLAW!
Rock on with your bad self, JG.
Funny, over lunch yesterday my mother was telling me how much better was her old book club than her current one, because the old book club was filled with people of diverse backgrounds, and it was so much more interesting because, consequently, everyone got took away an entirely different meaning after reading, say, Joyce. To which I replied that, as much fun as it may have been to hear about Stephen Dedalus as a metaphor for, say, some club member’s daddy issues, it really didn’t offer a whit of insight into the work in question. Turns out, mom’s not an intentionalist.
What’s interesting is I wonder why Baracky’s media would be so eager to embrace Mr. Limbaugh as the figurehead of the Republican party when that could confound the conflation of the Republican Party with those nasty stupid Christians? Especially NPR cause they’re so invested in the nasty stupid Christians meme. Mr. Limbaugh isn’t exactly Mr. Social Conservative I don’t think.
I think there’s a strategic decision what Baracky and Mr. Soros have made to avoid energizing the religious right so they’re getting the abortion stuff and stem cell business out of the way first off so it’s not so much a salient issue come election time. The way NPR would always shit on Christians was to either have a dumbass hick drawl their way through some sort of Jesusy witnessing for the Republican Party or … they would repeat repeat repeat lies like a “stem cell research ban” or a “war on science” or pretend as if abortion rights were forever hanging in the balance notwithstanding the fact Rs held the balance of power for years and abortion is still legal as ever.
This makes sense cause now that the dirty socialists are in power these issues can’t be used to rally their base they can only galvanize certain voters against them. So they need new enemies. It’s nice that Christian peoples will get a break from having a target painted on their ass all the time.
The inverse, non-LSD laden, iteration of Chomsky.
I’m not talking about Jeff’s argument about the argument. I agree with him that Steele’s performance was cowardly and counterproductive. And I have no patience for self identified “Conservatives†who voted for Obama based upon, what… some combination of idealism and guilt?… and are now suffering from a well deserved case of buyer’s remorse.
You (and most everyone in forums like this) are preaching to the choir Sdferr. If we want to succeed, we need to turn around and face the American Congregation writ large. To do this, we need to be able to speak from a variety of angles AND clear intent AND philosophical/political consistency to persuade the 80% or so of Americans that are – at least so far – agnostic on these issues. It is possible to do this without betraying our principles.
I speak as a former liberal Democrat. It took a career change – from Actor to Network Engineer – and lots of time for me to finally begin to realize that a) there are certain domains where reality (whether it be capacity in number or transactions per second or the unchangeable aspects of the human condition) will not be denied and b) some things just don’t scale well.
That’s how I made the transition for Democratic Socialist to Classic Liberal. Part of what we need to do is to nudge the middle in our direction. We do NOT need to pull punches to do this. But again, we need to tailor the message. Sometimes it’s as simple as a change in tone.
What’s truly a shame about Steele’s response was that he missed the opportunity to re-articulate Limbaugh’s message. I suspect that he did not take this opportunity either because he’s not really a classic liberal or he’s envious of Limbaugh’s talent and success.
And some are still intimidated by Obama’s background, race. Some are just too well bred to look a self identified well bred do-gooder in the face and cry “BULLSHITâ€. That’s where I fault Patternico; he’s afraid of loud voices and rudeness. Many times using our outside voice inside will be necessary… but not always.
Our world view has natural integrity and we can say “A = A†in a variety of voices depending upon who we’re addressing and who’s listening.
This is going to be a long struggle and we will be well advised not to confuse goals, strategy and tactics.
Benedick, let your mom have her hallucinations, I say. They’re probably not hurting Stephen Dedalus.
happyfeet, I’d recommend that you go into political consulting, but I have too much respect for you.
Royce, Michael Steele made his observations about Rush on Hughley’s show, the very show in which Hughley said that the Republican National Convention looked like Nazi Germany.
So, why is this all about Limbaugh?
Well played, sir.
I wish there was a way to handily encapsulate the argument, but it really doesn’t lend itself to that. Its messy and nuanced, and therefore true to reality.
Although I suppose we could lampoon the opposing view as the “RINO Nuremburg Defense”
“I vas only toeing ze rhetorical line! Everybody vas toeing ze rhetorical line! Vhere vould ve be if everyone started saying vhat popped in their heads!?!”
Patterico is a lawyer, he HAS to pre-parse his statements and re-write so they can be easily understood by even the dumbest, laziest dipshits (that’d be YOU, the jury) in the known universe. Or even Sheboygan (that’s a town in Wisconsin).
And that was all I was getting at, Royce. Since I’ve spent a great deal of time this last weekend trying to get Jeff’s interlocutors to engage in his argument at least for a little while, rather than continue to reframe it in their terms, so that Jeff’s argument is lost (I mean look at what Pat did here friday and saturday, avoiding it altogether, then finally Sat night addressing it only in terms that he, Pat, was comfortable with, to this hour, still not addressing Jeff’s argument, I think, but we shall see) I had only hoped that we not be dragged away to soon once again. Jeff’s argument will go on to other arguments, I think, that many people haven’t yet thought about. It is long and it isn’t necessarily easy. That’s all.
Good stuff, Jeff. Not enough really long sentences, but otherwise damn good.
As a manifesto, or guide of sorts, your piece is quite excellent, although I think we’re already seeing the preemptive strike from unified pravda in favoring the likes of those squishy wannabe dirty socialists like Frum, Parker, et. al. The media, if nothing else, have a fairly resilient ability to maintain an unadulterated stream of leftism tempered every now and then with ‘the daily republican transgression against the people.’ Scapegoating of Baracky’s opposition is bound to increase in direct proportion to his failures and inversely to the performance of the economy. By the 2010 midterms, the meme will have evolved to ‘if only those nasty republicans had got behind Obama, this economy would be back on track.’
Patterico is a lawyer, he HAS to pre-parse his statements and re-write so they can be easily understood by even the dumbest, laziest dipshits (that’d be YOU, the jury) in the known universe. Or even Sheboygan (that’s a town in Wisconsin).
I guess Rush just needs to speak exclusively to Rio Linda.
That is correct Jeff. And I agree with you… well, I think anyway… that WE should be setting the context. And if we don’t have the cojones to do that, then you’re right – we’re already hosed.
The late Bill Buckley was able to be classy, sophisticated, blunt and uncompromising in one classy package. We need another one like him. We need his rapier AND Limbaugh’s axe.
What we don’t need is a David Brooks or a Michael Steele.
We DO need someone as uncompromising as Limbaugh but with class appeal that works with hoi polloi.
And Legolas’ bow…
>>By the 2010 midterms, the meme will have evolved to ‘if only those nasty republicans had got behind Obama, this economy would be back on track.’
Relax. There is always more than one meme extant at any given time.
Given time, and sharp enough scissors, even children can remove enough words to distort the meaning of any quote. In context, Limbaugh was clear.
I wouldn’t dignify his detractors with a polite response. There is a reason the media is distrusted, and this is part of it.
When did you stop beating your wife?
Dash is right. The dirty socialist strategy makes a lot more sense if you figure they’re anticipating failure. It’s just like Hugo Chavez says: “It’s never too soon to make whiny excuses for your fucking up your little country with the dirty socialist schemes what George Soros emailed you.”
I remember a quote to the effect that “It’s impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood”. I don’t recall who said it, maybe someone else here will know.
Anyway, sometimes there are legitimate misunderstandings, especially when discussing complex ideas. Those are the occasions when clarity of expression is crucial.
When the misunderstandings are willful and deliberate, the people making them should be called out for the lying liars they are.
Thank you. In trying to avoid the occasions of sin I have no problem resisting presumption, but the other side of the coin, despair, threatens daily. Your courage gives me hope.
Lucid. Clear. I’ve got news for the pragmatists intent upon grooming conservatives and classical liberals into lapdogs of the Beltway. We’re not going to shut up. If you think we are embarrassing now, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
I want Obastard to fail. Utterly.
Well said, Jeff, right on! Although I, too, wanted a few more really long sentences – or maybe just one more.
I knew what LImbaugh meant when he said it – I heard it while listening to his show – and I especially appreciated the “somebody’s gotta say it” aspect as it relates to the war against thought control.
Fwiw, some of my one-liners in retort to personally confronting someone mouthing the “Limbaugh wants Obama to fail” meme:
1] “That’s quoting out of context [you moron]!” – expecting mostly blank stares or grunts.
2] “Well, do you really wan’t Communism to ‘succeed’?” – expecting mostly those significant silences without blank stares, you know, as though I hadn’t even spoken. [Please don’t anyone out there die without having had at least one of these experiences!]
3] “See, my business is always pickin’ up”, hoping for someone to ask what the hell I was talking about, so’s I could really lay it on.
I’m reiterating this here cause it for real seems to me to be the fascist antithesis of hoping our dipshit president fails…
No you can’t hope he fails. Traitors. When Baracky tells you how we’re gonna fix the economy what you fucking do is you obey.
Solid and stands all by itself.
Bravo.
CLAP*CLAP*CLAP
I am standing and in lieu of throwing flowers, I am sending you cases of New Beligum Ale.
Ummm…wow: “I offer that disclaimer because what seems to have gotten lost in the late unpleasantness between those who have supported Mr Limbaugh for his comments, offered in response to a specifc (and leading) prompt about the trajectory of an Obama presidency (with supporters having been called, alternately, “cultists,†“denialists,†“extremists,†or “idealists,†depending on who is doing the describing) and those who have been more critical of Mr Limbaugh for what they argue was either the provocative nature of his formulation or the lack of precision with which it was delivered, is the reason why any of this is at all important to begin with: namely, because where you stand on the issue provides insight into how you think language works — or should work — something that, protestations by a few prominent right wing pundits to the contrary, is not only not trivial or “fundamentally unserious†but is in fact crucial, I’d argue, to any understanding of how and why the conservative movement finds itself out in the political wilderness.”
Comment by steve in gr on 3/9 @ 12:07 pm # “I enjoyed every sentence.”
That’s easy – there are only two.
As I said at HA, excellent work sir. I enjoyed it wholeheartedly.
Outstanding intellectual argument by Goldstein. You can tell a lot of careful thought was put into this and I appreciate it. (I Admit had to read over it twice). A lot of us here share the position Jeff takes, and I hope other members of the conservative intelligentsia take note. Thanks for having Rush’s back. It’s downright despicable what we allow the Lib msm to get away with unchecked time after time. Re this:
As many pundits will patiently explain to you, ideological purity and idealism doesn’t win elections, so if not pragmatism, what? To which I reply, pragmatism is fine. But why not use our idealism pragmatically — which is to say, why not make it our strategy to use idealism as our cudgel against the media and the left in such a way that their tactic of misrepresentation and outrage no longer pays dividends? Why not make it our strategy to destroy their tactics — and in so doing, reaffirm the very principles at the heart of classical liberalism?
Someone please explain this to me. Jeff are you in the building? How do we get these bastards at their own game, especially when we have our own cannibalizing us and a powerful media set on mass manipulation?
RepubChica on March 9, 2009 at 5:20 PM
Good HA comment.
I joked last night that I should make thing all one sentence. As a way to prune the audience somewhat.
I’m the English Garden type I guess.
Yeah but could you fit it on a kernel of rice?
Huh. Coulda sworn it was all one sentence. (j/k)
Well done, Jeff.
Some of the Hot Air folks don’t like longish pieces, I’m getting the feeling.
One even saw big words and has concluded I said nothing, I think because of the big words.
If they wanted longish pieces, the would have gone to Captain Ed’s.
i blame allahpundit
Allahpundit puts all kinds of ideas in Mr. Patterico’s head I think.
they’re lawyers i think
Patterico’s big supporter, h2u, over at Ace’s:
Guess the part where I talked about how it’s fine to be clear if that’s what you’re going for whooshed by him.
Or, more likely, he didn’t read this, just as he hasn’t read any of my arguments. He just knows.
We need to do us some intellectual prunin’, people!
Does anyone remember which ones of the founders said, “Hey, Madison guy! Would you please stop writing such long and complex sentences so that we can follow what you’re saying? Cause it’s getting kinda hard for us over here. You know, we’re stupid and proud of it.”
The recent back-and-forth with Rush Limbaugh, for example, was explicitly authorized by Axelrod, who told aides that it was not a moment to sit quietly after Limbaugh said he hoped that Obama would “fail.â€
Masterful, Jeff.
Excellent, thank you. And thanks to Hot Air and Breitbart TV for having you on.
You know the hell of it is, this subject was pretty much dead by Friday night then for some reason some Republican bloggers decided they needed to wage full blown jihad against people who were traditionally their allies. Since then its been big misery for Republicans on the net. Are things that loused up in the Republican party or am I just reading things completely wrong? Lord knows, I’m wrong often enough…
Ah, well. It was only a matter of time before the whole thing turned into a question of my style.
The Obvious —
The subject here is control of language, and that’s an issue that won’t pass. Each iteration will fade, but as these accrue, conservatives lose ground and credibility. They are being defined against their wills by people who are purposely trying to misrepresent their meanings.
Until that’s fixed, we’re just losing slower.
another gem:)..’
—
Unfortunately, I agree. As much as I concede that Goldstein had some great points to make, they were lost in a jumble of run-on sentences and overly long support to his subject sentences. Bullet points around a main theme of “tell it like it is†boldly and without fear might have been much more effective. I’m never impressed when my students try to impress me with their vocabulary or rhetorical dexterity if they can’t make their point in a concise manner.
The upshot of it is that we need to be as on message and vocally vociferous as the libs have managed to be. We hold the rhetorical high ground, but we’re afraid to use it. We need to unite around a common theme and stay on it until there is no room to misinterpret our meaning, one way or the other.
—
‘I agree with what he’s saying, but if only he’d employed more rhetorical crutches interspersed with efficient bullet points..’
sort of reminds me of some criticisms I’ve heard of kierkegaard, e.g. “he’s far more wordy than he has to be to make the point he’s making.” inevitably, the critic’s understanding of the original argument is orders of magnitude coarser than the argument itself. almost as if the wordiness is there to communicate multiple layers of thought..
bravo jeff. what’s the word on allah/ed’s response? are they on board with this?
best
kristan
Hot Air was nice but they didn’t give you a picture thingy on the front page. Mr. Patterico got a picture thingy.
Nice, Jeff. I’ll reread it later after I’ve had some sleep (friggin’ DST).
That picture of Mr Kevin McCullough makes me sad every time I see it (not that I have anything against Mr McCullough). He has such a hangdog look there. Every time. Cap’n Ed maybe ought to get a different one unless that’s the point, which, what do I know, maybe it is the point.
Michelle put it up. I went directly to her with this. She doesn’t do the picture thingies, I don’t think.
Kristan —
Those folks don’t really respond to me. I make them feel icky, I think.
Jeff,
You’re right. It’s just the claims on the Republican side of the aisle that they didn’t want to talk about the any of this ring hollow in light of their actions. And their actions seem to indicate they feel that non belt-way, non-elites shouldn’t have any control of or access to the discourse at all. That is very disturbing. I hope I’m making a leap in logic that isn’t merited by the evidence on that, but…
Excellent post Jeff, just excellent. As always . . . . OUTLAW!
I noticed (for some reason) today the meme that the MSM will never, stress never, give the conservative point of view the time of day or allow it fair representation. People wrote that at both HA and AoS. It seems to be an article of faith. It’s quite wrong, I think. It may not be the case today, but to behave as though it is simply the condition of the world, period, is silly.
I as rading your Hot Air post and cam to this phras:
“words should be interpreted the way a reasonable person would interpret them.â€
That is ho a layr intrprts ords. That is viing things as a layr. His training is that typ; Pattrico acts that ay.
(I hav lost my doubl-U ky and anothr; guss hich on has also gon?) :)
You should watch your ambiguity, Mikey.
That wasn’t so much an argument as it was a statement of principle. We say we aren’t going to concede our principles, but we’re willing to concede the forum where they are debated? Absurd. This piece was outstanding Jeff and I’m going to force everyone I know to read it. I hope H2U searches real hard for some intellectual honesty, examines the argument, and unfucks himself.
H2u and a good many of the other folks need to first figure out what the hell the discussion is even about before I pay any attention to them. I would like to see some of the Reader’s Digest intellectuals give a shot at condensing the post down into what they think is an improved version, just for shits and giggles.
shit.
Jeff, that post was a ray of purest sunshine…. for those who don’t need sunlight piped in through their navels.
Ultimately, there has to be a downside for the media in pulling this stuff. For radio and TV liars, maybe blanketing the FCC with complaints would do something (even if it’s only wasting their time reading it). I’m not sure what to do with print liars or Net liars, though.
Other than tracking them down and camping on their lawns. It works for ACORN….
I try to b clar Dan; th judgs don’t lik it hn you ar unclar and thy ask you qustions about it. Qustions ar bad things from thos in black robs.
Maks lif hll.
@95 Sdferr,
“It’s quite wrong…”
How so? Please expand.
Outstanding. As a reader of both sites, I think you sort of blew some of the troglodites away, but they have a fairly intelligent readership, and the readers who were confused by technical terms were clarified by other readers.
But obviously they were unfamiliar with conversations with collegius undomesticatus, or in other terms, outlaw.
The world, I think, Old Grouch, if it does anything I can grab in a phrase at all, does this one thing – namely, it changes. I wouldn’t be bothering with this conversation, with these thoughts, with these arguments if I didn’t think that the world can change, that one day, maybe not tomorrow or even ten months from now, but one day the attitude of Americans can come to demand a decent hearing from conservatives in the media, can demand that they not be talked down to, lied to, misled about by the nose by, cajoled by, disfavored by, the mainstream media. It can change. I see no reason to suppose as a matter of utterly unalterable circumstance, particularly in the realm of politics, that it can’t.
For me it’s a snicker and a “Moving right along…”
Some of the Hot Air folks don’t like longish pieces, I’m getting the feeling.
Hot Air is video-oriented. You go there for quick bites and impressions, not for pieces that require, you know, an attention span longer than a gnat’s and reading comprehension beyond reading LOLcats.
An excellent piece of work, sir. Thank you.
No no no. It is not too long. It is beautifully done. Following Jeff G’s line of reasoning is a most enjoyable journey.
Top-shelf, Jeff.
Beyond that, what should I be doing that doesn’t involve “talk†— putting together a “classical liberals against the misuse of language†celebrity soft ball team?
Serious problems demand sober solutions, so I say Ice-Hockey team instead.
@105 Sdferr,
I see the meme using “never” in the sense of “on no (present) occasion.”
Whether it also applies in the sense “not ever” is yet to be determined.
But as one who has been observing this stuff since the Johnson campaign, I would opine that “not ever,” at least for short values of “ever,” remains a good bet.
I see no reason to suppose as a matter of utterly unalterable circumstance, particularly in the realm of politics, that it can’t.
I don’t really see it happening, not in the main stream media. It is always going to be most profitable for them to play to the mob, just like the Democrats do. Fear and sensationalism sell, that is why the mass media has always been skewed toward populism. We just have to use niche media and work harder to get our message out.
The obtuseness of Ace and AllahPander are maddening. Any of us can cook up four dozen alternate, “careful” ways to say “I want Obastard to fail.” And any of us can twist those alternate expressions into “I want the nation to crash and burn” with the right interpretation. Lost in the pigheaded obtuseness is that the more you blunt, bowdlerize, and burnish the cutting edges of your expression, the less cutting it is. Perforce. The more you blunt your words, the more you signal to the enemy that he holds the upper hand. You actually encourage him to increase his efforts to blur your meaning, because he can see you fear his efforts. This is so, so simple. All we have is words. We’re not in the 18th Century, ready to repair to our muskets and fight with material force. The soft tyranny descending upon us comes in a salvo of linguistic shrapnel, and only our words can retaliate. We’re in a cultural dilemma, and culture often begins with words.
Old Grouch, I think HebrewToYou is using never to argue with Jeff at HA that Jeff shouldn’t be bothering to make this argument at all, if only because in h2u’s opinion, Patterico has it all over Jeff on this count. Only the “pragmatic” present (taken in an awfully narrow view of “pragmatic”, as though long strategies cannot be) is real. Everything else, up to and including the (to me) altered future, is unreal. For my part, to make that argument is to say, shut up, the world cannot change, you cannot change it, so just shut up.
Responses from Patterico’s thread on my post (which in an update, in advance of seeing the piece, Patterico writes: “I’ll make a bold prediction. It will emerge that the candy-asses who dared say anything bad about Rush Limbaugh are candy-assed candy-asses.
Oh, it won’t be said in so many words, as much as implied. OUTLAW!):
I’m not going to say again that some people might want to reconsider who here has acted like the character assassin throughout all this. Except I just did.
I particularly like Timmy on bended knee with his mouth around Patterico’s cock, pretending that I “chose to attack Patterico” for some craven motive. Probably the same reason I mentioned Allah, as well.
I guess I know who’s been whispering in Pat’s ear about my sneaky, money-grubbingness — the little leftwing troll tool who got booted from here and found Caric’s place too empty for attention.
Comment by kelly on 3/9 @ 4:05 pm #
Huh. Coulda sworn it was all one sentence. (j/k)
Heh – if you can’t make a paragraph out of a single sentence, you just aren’t trying hard enough.
In more personal terms, maybe, Old Grouch, all my life from the day I was born right up ’til the day after election day 1994 and I picked up my morning Washington Post and learned that the Republican’s had won a majority in the House, that House had been ruled by Democrats. I nearly had a stroke when I read that headline. It was inconceivable to me (under the stupid reading that Vizzini gives inconceivable). Political things, I finally realized, can change. I think the same surprise may come some day to those who think the media cannot change. In a small way, who foresaw FoxNews relative success of 2009 in 1976, to pick a date at random?
The funny thing is, as I told my wife, I was going to throw in a few long sentences in order both to get the style police chirping and (and this is the kicker) to have a little private chuckle when the same people who complain about how we need to carefully articulate our ideas in such a way that it is very difficult to take them out of context began complaining that I’ve phrased certain points in precisely that way.
And what it get you is sentences that are deliberately filled with a nice nougaty academic texture…
Someday they’ll get me. Or more likely, not.
One of the things I’ve always admired about Bill Kristol is his insistent refusal to play the stinking media’s game, to just about always have his wits about him (surely he’s not perfect and someone will cite some instance when he failed, of course) to be ready to say halt, let’s back up and look at what you just said you miserably informed media idiot you and go with what’s true, this other thing here, rather than the bullshit meme you just threw out there just now. Ok, now let’s start over.
“We’re not in the 18th Century, ready to repair to our muskets and fight with material force.”
Wadda ya mean “We” paleface?
Hot Air is mostly, I think, for those who like their news in shorter sentences. They have longer pieces, but I think many are attracted to the videos and short blurbs.
But, some people will get it.I can’t remember my password for commenting over there, but Happyfeet brought his A game, so I don’t feel like I’m needed. And, I read Mark Levin it. Woot!
@117 Sdferr
And in 1967 the idea that I would ever be able to hear a conservative commentator holding forth for three hours a day on national radio (to an audience of millions) would have been inconceivable to me. So go figure.
The media’s attitude toward conservatism won’t change until minds are changed. The first step in the process is for people get a “fair and balanced” [grin] picture of conservatism, not a caricature drawn by its enemies. To do that, we must take the initiative and recapture the field of discourse, which is what Jeff has been talking about.
Yep, OG, we must. That, I think is both the long and the short of it.
Dear Jeff:
It was very well written, indeed, but the audience at HA is different from the one at PW.
There is a pressing need for your ideas to be articulated to the general public. (One of the reasons we’re in such deep shit as as nation is that no one has been able to educate the ‘average’ voter on the dangers of Orwellian language manipulation.) But in order to reach the ‘average’ blog reader, you have to couch your argument in terms that are easily apprehended. Newspapers are not geared to the 6th-grade reading level for nothing. You need the common touch.
If you were to express your ideas in simpler terms, you would be doing a great service to the American public. Your academic style of writing is for the readers of PW; your conversational style of writing style is for a public that urgently needs an education in linguistics in order to retain its freedom.
Please keep these people in mind.
I’m hoping that my novella provides that education, and does so while making people hungry for tacos, and scared witless of a pimp Jesus who doesn’t like fish bumperstickers.
Jeff, I don’t know whether you’ve seen it or not, nor even whether it will add materially to the information you’ve already got but if you’ve got time, take a glance at the exchange between Jimmie at Sundries Shack and Patterico in the comments to Jimmie’s post, on the subject of the White House and media’s reading of Limbaugh’s intent.
Jeff doesn’t need to express his ideas in simpler terms. There are plenty of other folks to do that. We need Jeff just the way he is.
Fish tacos! OUTLAW!
I’d like to see him tailor the same message for different audiences. The ability to “shift dialects†and stay philosophically aligned speaks to the strength, breadth and depth of classic liberalism.
Eat me.
Said Agent K to the creepy-big cockroach.
Caught that, Sdferr. He sure was tenacious about telling everyone how they were mistaking his position. Maybe had he been more precise in expressing it the first time…
I got a kick out of his squeezing out that “kind of like a religious text” turd. Whoo-boy.
There is a pressing need for your ideas to be articulated to the general public. (One of the reasons we’re in such deep shit as as nation is that no one has been able to educate the ‘average’ voter on the dangers of Orwellian language manipulation.) But in order to reach the ‘average’ blog reader, you have to couch your argument in terms that are easily apprehended. Newspapers are not geared to the 6th-grade reading level for nothing. You need the common touch.
The average voter doesn’t give a shit about Orwellian language manipulation, unfortunately. The average voter cares about season tickets, a full fridge, and having more toys than the neighbors. What needs communication is he isn’t going to get that with dirty socialists fucking up the economy.
The ability to “shift dialects†and stay philosophically aligned speaks to the strength, breadth and depth of
classic liberalism.Clintons Obamas.
WTF? Perhaps my intentionalism is not going through, perhaps I was less than clear with one post out of about fifty on this topic, yes I think you are correct about the use of language, but the issue of the damage Obama is doing to the economy is a bigger issue that got lost in the whole Patterico debate. Not by you, but by them. And Rush said he hoped Obama failed in doing what he wanted to do to the economy. So I agree with you and agree we should focus our energy on stopping Obama.
So can you remove that candy apple out of my ass now? The fucker hurts more than a cheese shit. I think I lost an “o” ring.
But for real though what we really need is some collection of conservative billionaires (if billionaires still exist) who know the value of the things that Baracky and his dirty socialist cadre are destroying to fund some right wing, Alinsky-esque machine that can do the things those moveon and kos do, instead of funding the itinerant onanism of the pajamas douche crowd (save instaguy). Our perspective is inherently amenable to most people, cf. Joe the plumber, Santelli, Cramer. We need a multiplier of our message, and maybe the sclerotic suits at Fox will wake up and start getting more aggressive and integrating with the people who watch their little network to rebut the ever increasing sway of Orwellian, in the literal sense of the word, propaganda in the mediaspace. O and they can stop apologizing (Murdoch, I’m looking at you) to douchenozzles like Al Sharpton while they’re at it.
Cuz while we’re hammering out our message, the army of brownshirts is about to be unleashed:
“US President Barack Obama mustered his powerful campaign army on Monday, calling on his millions of supporters to lobby on behalf of his budget and economic plan.†*a>
Joe — I just cut and pasted all the comments. I didn’t find yours any but perfectly reasonable.
“I’m not going to say again that some people might want to reconsider who here has acted like the character assassin throughout all this. Except I just did.”
Yeah, you did.
Look, I skimmed your piece at lunchtime and was impressed with what I saw. I was wrong to intimate that you would use the occasion in part to suggest that your opponents were candy-asses. You rose above that, and I apologize.
I also had a minor revelation this morning that makes me think I may be really understanding what you’re arguing for the first time. I’m interested in debating it and discussing it with you.
But I won’t play the game of “who’s a better guy,” so we have to agree at the outset that neither of us will do that — we’ll just discuss the arguments.
“I particularly like Timmy on bended knee with his mouth around Patterico’s cock, pretending that I “chose to attack Patterico†for some craven motive. Probably the same reason I mentioned Allah, as well.
I guess I know who’s been whispering in Pat’s ear about my sneaky, money-grubbingness — the little leftwing troll tool who got booted from here and found Caric’s place too empty for attention.”
No, I had the idea myself, for reasons explained in a post that was deleted. I’d rather just forget about that whole thing, and I thought you felt the same way, except you keep seeming to bring it up. That’s part of what I mean about playing the game of “who’s the better guy.” I insinuated you were doing the foundation for monetary reasons; you insinuated I was anti-Semitic; we can dwell on it and engage in an endless and fruitless argument about who deserves to claim the moral high ground (answer: neither of us); or we can forget it once and for all. I vote for the latter.
Just let me know, because I want to talk these issues over, and I think you’re a hell of a smart guy, but I won’t play the dominance “I’m a better man than you” game any more because I know where it leads. If I see it headed that way, I’ll bolt.
Again, let me know. I commit to it if you will.
“Caught that, Sdferr. He sure was tenacious about telling everyone how they were mistaking his position. Maybe had he been more precise in expressing it the first time…”
Somehow I suspected this argument was coming, and pre-responded this morning:
I’m still thinking this one through, however, so don’t freeze my argument like a mosquito in amber. Where I feel confident, and where I feel I can defend my ground, is defending the idea that one should indeed take care to guard against REASONABLE misinterpretations of one’s words. I think that’s the foundation of good communication.
I’m still thinking through in my head whether it makes sense to take care to guard against UNREASONABLE misinterpretations of one’s words — in particular, UNREASONABLE misinterpretations that you know will happen. This is the area where I am starting to see your argument with new eyes, and you may have started to convince me. I need to think about it more — and read your piece carefully all the way through.
I am happy to have the debate about guarding against REASONABLE misinterpretations of one’s words — something that I gather you don’t see as an imperative unless the speaker prioritizes clarity. Maybe that’s because clarity is for me always the paramount goal in writing — I’m trying to communicate, so why not try to do so as clearly as I possibly can? I can see situations where one deliberately seeks ambiguity — in artistic pieces, jokes, pranks, and the like — but those strike me as the exceptions that prove the rule.
My revelation (for me) was in distinguishing between reasonable and unreasonable misinterpretations. That strikes me as critical. You concern yourself with one, and possibly not with the other. Because I’m still struggling with the other (whether one should ever guard against unreasonable misinterpretation) I choose to begin with the ground I find easier to defend (one should generally guard against reasonable misinterpretation).
It’s the foundation of what I expect will form the basis of the rebuttal I eventually write to the HA piece (which I’ll write on my site).
Pat, once you start down that road, you start to look like one of those warning labels that tells you that you shouldn’t stick your tongue to the car battery terminal.
Or that Liquid Plumber should not be administered rectally.
Is this the general “you,” Dan? Or specifically me?
I’m assuming the general “you.”
Yes, as in “once one” . . .
Jeff and I are very, very good at getting each other’s goat.
That’s true. And I feel that mine has been gotten some, too.
The Hot Air edition was just linked at Instapundit. Hot Air gets the ‘lanch. But Jeff gets the recognition and exposure.
“That’s true. And I feel that mine has been gotten some, too.”
Did I do something to you? I didn’t mean to.
the idea that one should indeed take care to guard against REASONABLE misinterpretations of one’s words. I think that’s the foundation of good communication.
Indeed. But then again I’m nothing, if not unreasonable.
So the hard right gets punted around the ‘net. Who the hell reads or or responds to that?
You?
Can I just say that I like the Patterico? I don’t want anyone to have the wrong idea about that, no matter how harsh some of what I write may sound, I’ll still be reading what Pat writes (have been for years, btw) and thinking about what he has to say, so much of it being right the fuck on, and etc. Thanks Pat, just so you know.
Excellent points Jeff G,
In your inimitible style they were, as always, well made as well as eloquently and clearly articulated…
I especially liked the examples using “Curious Georgeâ€.
The use of the childrens book was especially brilliant in that it demonstrated clearly the extent to which something with a payently obvious meaning can be subhect to ideological contortions at will…
Keep up the good work!
OUTLAW!
Me?
To be honest, I just skim.
oh. There’s Mr. Patterico. Hi. You’re really gonna write a rebuttal? I’m trying trying to catch up and now goats are involved. Yes. Patterico is a good man but I mean it like before that phrase got defined a lot down so you know I’m for real.
Except that no one agrees on what “hard right” is any more.
But to the subject at hand. I found it on HA before I found it here. (I don’t think that my web browser at work actually refreshes stuff until I MAKE IT do so.)
That was probably a record number of words in an HA post, since they usually have a video in their posts. All of it very good and needing to be said, even if some of the HA commenters didn’t appear to have the attention span of an ADD sufferer. I’ll probably go make that point over there.
But lets keep goats out of it, m’kay?
“You’re really gonna write a rebuttal?”
Yeah, probably. Ain’t nobody under any obligation to read it. And I might not. I’m pretty busy with work work.
Eleven hours today (ended in snow) and back in the hole at zero six tomorrow… but what Jeff wrote made my day.
Wish I could stay and read the last half of the comments (‘specially since folks are moving drinks and tables back from Dan and Pat) but I’m out on my feet.
Oh, and OUTLAW!
I will be at the next SLC Tea Party, with my sign that says “SKILLED MALE CONSTRUCTION WORKERS NEED NOT APPLY IN THE AGE OF OBAMA” under a pic of Mr. Reich.
The back will read “Commies aren’t cool”, under a slightly modified iteration of Obie’s Lenin poster.
Great work, Mr. Goldstein.
marklevinshow.com
Front page baby.
My wife just turned me on to witch hazel, it works wonders down under!
Not a rebuttal, actually, so much as a post that makes a few points in response. Not quite the same thing.
Maybe a rebutton, then?
Reading Ace’s comments in the Newt v Rush thread at AoS has been a sort of education. Ace, it appears to me (and I’m up to 164 so far) does not, cannot entertain the possibility that he, Ace, has not understood Limbaugh’s intent, while Limbaugh, again, it appears to me, does (continue to) understand Limbaugh’s intent. Hence, when Limbaugh hears Newt attributing to Limbaugh things that Limbaugh didn’t say, didn’t mean, didn’t intend, and in doing so Newt takes up the (false) bleat of the media, Limbaugh naturally lashes out to dismiss Newt (signing, of course, as he does so). One might think that would be the clue to ring the bell for Ace, but no! friends, no, Ace you see, understands Limbaugh better than Limbaugh understands Limbaugh! So Limbaugh must be a jerk for defending himself. It is so simple!
Sighing, I meant to write, not “signing”.
Pat —
I like you. I don’t know how we ever got to this point, but I’d like to put the bad blood behind us. When I “choose” one of your pieces to “attack,” I’m really only reading one of your pieces and reacting with the hopes of starting a debate. And I do it because I think the debate worthwhile.
I think you are impossibly wrong on this issue, but it it’s interpretive theory you want to discuss, we can have that discussion, time permitting. I need to go have my shoulder worked on this week. It’s killing me — from patting myself on the back!
OUTLAW!
Thanks for writing that, Jeff. During the last week, I really have been amazed at the alleged intelligent bloggers who’ve overlooked the painfully obvious you just pointed out.
My advice to the conservatives who can’t stand the heat of a few “impolitic” statements? Butch up, precious. Watered-down words lose relevance…and haven’t you figured out yet that your enemies want you to be so cautious about opening your mouth that you’ll keep it closed?
“I like you. I don’t know how we ever got to this point, but I’d like to put the bad blood behind us.”
Done.
Timmah is a creepy little fuck.
This post was excellent. I have not had a chance to read the Leftists yet today, but it is only a matter of time until they start screeching about the Curious George reference.
What a great day.
I dunno how easy it will be for me to discuss this week either. But there’s plenty of time.
Ah, now there is a cluebat for me.
That is a recipe for either silence or insanity. And that is what (the general) you would have to do to prevent this sort of thing from happening. Let’s keep in mind that it is now the policy of the Obama Administration to unreasonably interpret and misrepresent Rush Limbaugh. Steele and Newt are fools to assist in that endeavor. I like both guys but then I thought they were both smarter than that.
Now, you can say that Rush’s statement was ambiguous enough to be reasonably interpreted in the bad, awful, traitorous way. But I don’t think that holds up when taken in the context it was originally uttered or in the context it was repeated in. (See the CPAC speech) So, then we find the line of reasonableness creeping along a slippery slope. For the life of me I can’t see why any ideological Obama opponent would allow themselves to be baited into playing that game. By simply stepping into the ring, you lose. There is no other possible outcome.
That’s awfully good to see. You’re both very bright, very capable, very entertaining guys. They’re sowing division. Don’t play their game. You’ll lose.
Indeed.
Steele and Newt are fools to assist in that endeavor. I like both guys but then I thought they were both smarter than that.
Pablo,
Newt’s IQ dropped severely for me when he sat with Pelosi on the climate-change commercials. He’s not a conservative leader, he’s an author trying to widen his market. It’s just about Newt. Here’s a suggested title for your next book Mr. Gingrich:
I of Newt
[…] UPDATE 4: The final word, beautifully written. […]
Global warming, climate change is one of those things.
You have this friend. Known him for quite awhile. You talk, discuss stuff and generally help each other. One day he mentions he is getting a new car. But first he has to go get a reading, to make sure the color of the car, will match his aura.
After that, you’re still friends, still talk, but you never again ask for his advice. That’s just gone.
A very tidy little piece, Jeff G., and just the right amount of cow bell. And while Hot Air may not have been the natural home of such a piece, it does have the benefit of exposure. I think good things will happen as a result. Bravo.
I think that’s something we can all agree upon.
Brilliant, Jeff
In an attempt to provide brevity to those who apparently value it so much, I humbly submit a Handy Guide to understanding the “arguments” of folks trying desperately NOT to get it:
1. Increased clarity with the media will magically make them stop being disingenuous and corrupt. [See also: Big Rock Candy Mountain]
2. Because you’re Conservative, saying what you mean should give way to saying what you think they can’t twist. [See Also: Fool’s Errand. Capitulation Bonus: holding the intellectually disingenuous to account will never work and wouldn’t even serve to add value to the macro debate].
3. Jeff’s wordiness + my intellectual laziness = nothing to be learned from investing the time to read and contemplate a long article. [See Also: Isn’t there a Meaning and Intentionalism Graph or Chart or something? In color preferably?]
Person up, Peoples!
Looks like I’m late to this thread. I left a comment at HA, but the discussion over here is certainly of a much higher calibre.
However gebrauchshund’s comment at #63, on calling people out for intentionally misunderstanding a statement, prompted me to realize something about this language.
If it’s intentional, it isn’t a misunderstanding at all. We should call it what it is: a disunderstanding.
“You, sir, disunderstand me, and that is something up with which I will not put!”
I know it’s not a word yet, but we all should start making it one, in common everyday usage, even.
Outlaw! in Siam
Pablo suggested I post this again:
Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:
Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:
Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:
Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:
Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:
Jeff Goldstein’s threat of violence:
From: Jeff Goldstein: Arguing “On Point” — With Threats of Violence.
Thanks to Pablo for the suggestion. It’s a good one. Sorta makes it clear who wrote this post.