An interesting trial balloon for Presidential hypocrisy being floated today attempts to triangulate, for purposes of comparison, the idea of “inherent authority” under Article II with the NSA foreign surveillance story and the President’s reaction to Hurricane Katrina. From Begging to Differ’s Venkat, “About that Inherent Authority”:
Josh Marshall flags a story in the Times quoting Brownie as saying he told the White House about the levee break when Katrina hit. The story reminded me of the Posse Comitatus argument floating around the sphere in Katrina’s aftermath.
Here is one good example of this argument:
In order for active duty troops (under Posse Comitatus) to have the authority to act in a law enforcement capacity, one of two things must happen: a) The Governor cede control to federal authorities, which didn’t (and still hasn’t) happened; or b) The President invoke the Insurrection Act (which doesn’t typically apply to looting situations), in which case he would be forcing the Governor out of power against her will, and would be committing a potentially impeachable offense.
I didn’t buy this argument for a couple of reasons which in retrospect seem right to me (1) allegations of looting were overblown so troops would not have been acting in any “law enforcement capacity”; and (2) the Governer had “ceded power†to the feds long long before there was any talk of active duty or reserve assistance. But that’s neither here nor there.
What’s interesting to me is this. Where was that talk of “inherent authority” in the context of the feds’ failure to step in when Katrina hit? In the FISA context, there are those who argue (without reservation) that GW didn’t have to follow FISA because he had some residual inherent authority to eavesdrop or even that FISA is on shaky ground to the extent it limits the President’s inherent authority as Commander-in-Chief. It’s interesting enough to see that the wavers of the Posse Comitatus flag didn’t bother to even consider this argument in the Katrina context. (Heck, the above post even throws the “I” word around.)
Who knows, maybe there’s some basis for arguing that the President’s inherent authority should only be geared towards war and aggression by foreign states and not natural disasters. There’s surely some “tradition” support for this. (Query as to how well this supports the assertion of Commander-in-Chief power over the objection of Congress based on the threat of an amorphous nation-less group such as Al Queda, but that also is neither here nor there.) But what’s equally interesting is that nothing in the text itself supports limiting the President’s inherent authority only to situations where the President is dealing with aggression by foreign states. The document merely states that the “President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States . . . .â€Â
Maybe I’m missing something. Then again, maybe this is merely another example of people taking unprincipled positions—in this case, supporting an enlargement or limitation of Executive power depending on whether or not it’s politically expedient.
[My emphasis]
Having discussed the practical legal considerations of the Katrina issue at length, I have no desire to revisit them in detail here, except to say that both of Venkat’s reasons for not accepting the argument that a federal takeover of the situation would require either the invocaton of the Insurrection Act or the ceding of control by the Governor (which he says “in retrospect seem right to me”) are both, in fact, wrong—which we have “retrospect” to thank for making clear.
In the massive paper dump by Blanco, the Governor herself admitted she misunderstood how to handle troop requests; and we only know that “allegations of looting were overblown so troops would not have been acting in any ‘law enforcement capacity’” with the luxury of hindsight. For this confusion, I excoriated the media at the time. And, as Matt Welch at Reason has pointed out subsequently, the media’s hysterical and hyperbolic coverage did in fact have a tangible tactical impact on how feds handled the situation. The ceding of power to which Venkat refers—Blanco’s applications to FEMA and the President—were, of course, not for first responder units (this not being FEMA’s function); and the control of troop deployment remained with the Governor, whose ignorance of her role is, when all is said and done, where that particular buck stops.
But, to borrow a phrase, that’s neither here nor there.
Instead, what interests me is this bit of the trial balloon which attempts to connect a failure to rely on “inherent authority” during a natural disaster with the invocation of “inherent authority” with regard to an enemy who has already struck the homeland and who, by all accounts, includes among its MO the tendency to embed itself in its enemy’s territory and work to exploit certain softspots in the legal systems of the very liberal societies it wishes to destroy:
Where was that talk of “inherent authority” in the context of the feds’ failure to step in when Katrina hit? In the FISA context, there are those who argue (without reservation) that GW didn’t have to follow FISA because he had some residual inherent authority to eavesdrop or even that FISA is on shaky ground to the extent it limits the President’s inherent authority as Commander-in-Chief. It’s interesting enough to see that the wavers of the Posse Comitatus flag didn’t bother to even consider this argument in the Katrina context. (Heck, the above post even throws the “I” word around.)
Who knows, maybe there’s some basis for arguing that the President’s inherent authority should only be geared towards war and aggression by foreign states and not natural disasters. There’s surely some “tradition” support for this. (Query as to how well this supports the assertion of Commander-in-Chief power over the objection of Congress based on the threat of an amorphous nation-less group such as Al Queda, but that also is neither here nor there.) But what’s equally interesting is that nothing in the text itself supports limiting the President’s inherent authority only to situations where the President is dealing with aggression by foreign states. The document merely states that the “President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States . . . .â€Â
Maybe I’m missing something. Then again, maybe this is merely another example of people taking unprincipled positions—in this case, supporting an enlargement or limitation of Executive power depending on whether or not it’s politically expedient.
I think Venkat is right—this is another example of people taking unprincipled positions—but the unprincipled position in question is not as he imagines it to be. His argument seems to be that those who are now arguing that the President’s Article II powers, particularly this idea of “inherent authority”, which compels him, via constitutional mandate, to run a war once congress passes the AUMF, should also have compelled him to step into N.O. like the imperial authority many fear him to be and wrest control of the chain of command away from the female Democratic Governor (BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY!)—a position I’m not so certain Venkat and his ideological brethren would have cheered in real time.
In fact, if I had to guess, I would bet that such actions would have been deemed “unitary” or “imperial”—and that the “plenary” authority of the President would have been forcefully challenged by those on the political left who suddenly found themselves supporting the very kind of federalism that makes those who favor a vast and powerful centralized government very uncomfortable.
Which, this seems to me the example of people taking unprincipled positions based on political expediency. For my part, I never raised the “inherent authority” argument with respect to a hurricane because I recognize state sovereignty and the importance of the local government to act as first responder. It therefore would make no sense for me to conceive of an Article II takeover of a state while the lawful government was still maintaining that it held authority.
And the President’s respect for state sovereignty seems to me, at least, to have absolutely nothing to do with his mandate as CiC to fight enemies both home and abroad—particularly when those enemies have been outlined in a force resolution. Try as I may, I don’t remember Congress passing a joint resolution for the use of force against Hurricane Katrina…
But there is an important point beyond that—one so obvious to me that it almost begs belief that Venkat and Marshall are posing these “questions” seriously. Note again this odd section of Venkat’s complaint, presented rhetorically as a question that, from an argument perspective, is intended to function, ironically enough, meta-rhetorically:
Who knows, maybe there’s some basis for arguing that the President’s inherent authority should only be geared towards war and aggression by foreign states and not natural disasters. There’s surely some “tradition” support for this.
Why, yes, indeed, there surely is—whereas there is absolutely no tradition that I can think of off the top of my head where “inherent authority” has been compellingly cited as a reason to run roughshod over state sovereignty when the impetus in question is a storm.
Note, too, how Venkat scare quotes “tradition” in order to minimize it’s force as a basis for implied precedence while simultaneously suggesting that somewhere, sometime, some backward rubes made the crazy distinction between a hurricane and a wartime invasion—and, having made that distinction, was then able to draw further distinction in terms of where the locus of primary authority should reside in each separate type of crisis.
Then there’s this, which Venkat appends to what he tries to present as an open question about distinctions between war and natural disasters:
“(Query as to how well this supports the assertion of Commander-in-Chief power over the objection of Congress based on the threat of an amorphous nation-less group such as Al Queda, but that also is neither here nor there.)”
This, of course, is a cheap aside; Congress does not get to laundry list the AUMF provisions after the fact of approving the resolution, nor does their failure to include specifics within the resolution mean that those specifics are unjustified or illegal, as Justice O’Connor pointed out. If Congress was not so concerned about this “amorphous nation-less group,” they were free not to pass the force resolution in the first place.
But this second-guessing as to tactics, which has become the hallmark of the congressional leadership—is nothing more than posturing; and the current Congressional desire to expand FISA is nothing more than an attempt to wrest Constitutional power away from the executive branch and expand the war-managing powers of the legislative and judiciary branches—in clear violation of the Constitution.
****
update: Of course, you are free to ignore anything I write or argue. After all, my decision to become a stay at home dad marks me as a “failed academic” in the eyes of some anonymous internet cheap-shot artists. Not only that, but my critique of identity politics is nothing but a bitter, failed academic’s cover for some deeper malignancy of regret and vindictiveness against my intellectual betters. Which, come to think of it, is analogous to the situation with Chimpler! Because for all his talk about broken resolutions and gathering threats and international terrorists and global strategies, the real reason he invaded Iraq was to get back at Saddam for messin’ with his Pappy. Such is the stunning depth of thought here.
Quoth the Poorman, in response to my critique of a battle within the academy over control of language: “For such are the wages of not giving Goldstein a teaching job.” Unfortunately, the Editors have misunderstood my argument. Nowhere do I say, for instance, that “elite academics” are the real villains of the cartoon crisis. Instead, as my many many many posts have explained, I make a “villain” of a particular structure of thought that a certain sect of academics and public policy makers advocate for. Which would place the battle within elite academia, but—it being a battle—would necessarily consist of warring sides. Making the one villian premise dubious.
But be that as it may. The truth is, I had a teaching job. Which I gave up to stay at home with my son after he was born. Granted, the decision was made easier by my growing displeasure with the echochamber in the humanities. And by my discipline itself, which was creative writing. That is, I studied to be a fiction writer, not a full-time academic.
Similarly, I never applied for any additional teaching jobs. Does that make me a “failed academic”? I don’t know. Though I could name a number of my former colleagues, progressives though they be, who would strenuously differ with “The Editor’s” assessment of me. Which assessment, I might add, is quite different from the one he had of me back when he was still going by Andrew Northrup and not trying to pick traffic crumbs out of the pudendas of Atrios and Kos like some lowly genital crab. Y’know—back in the day).
And don’t miss the comments! It’s a regular Jeff Goldstein love fest!
appendix: It occurs to me (and it isn’t lost on many of my friends still working in the academy, either, who still talk to me, despite my rather questionable worth) that my posts on identity politics or intentionalism are often more widely read than are traditional academic papers and books on the subject, which tend to find their audiences only among others in the subdiscipline. New media has changed all that.
Personally, I am content to be judged on the content of my thought. The Editors, however, believe I should be judged solely on my current employment status. That is to say, you need advice about potty training? Call on Jeff. You want to consider the failings of a particular idea of interpretation and its ancillary effects on how we decide to structure a society? Go find some new historicist at Duke who is working on a semiotic argument about the veiled misogyny evident in the footwear appearing in Margaret Atwood’s non-canonical early fiction.
This type of argument, it seems to me, is simply a new iteration of the “chickenhawk” argument —one that is specifically intended to undermine the credibility of the subject whose bona fides are being called into question. The added suggestion that my interest in identity politics has to do with my not getting a job (which is completely false) is meant to poison the well by offering ulterior motives (maybe some Darkie or Womyn stole the job that is rightfully mine).
These rhetorical tactics are tawdry and, frankly, beneath contempt. Northrup should stick to kitten jokes. Because when he opens his mouth in an attempt to be serious, he is inveterately incapable of disguising the bile that pours out.
****
update 2: Thank you, Darleen.
I actually heard this particular trial balloon floated on Sean Hannity’s show last week by an ostensibly “conservative” caller.
Interesting where these things seem to crop up.
How can you argue that the President has the inherent authority to take a piss in the oval office washroom, but that he has no inherent authority to every poor family a brand new Mercedes with federal revenues?!? It’s hipocracy I tell you!
apples & oranges
Its unbelievable that people are so ignorant as to not understand the difference between domestic disaster relief where the states retain their powers and the President’s constitutional authority over federal armed forces and foreign affairs.
Unbelievable.
Agreed.
What stuns me in this whole episode is how the City of New Orleans is given a pass for failing to provide initial protection of its of the only natural disaster which comes with a 4-5 day notice and a fairly predictable response.
Also, in the spirit of recapturing the moment – here’s the Rolling Stone article about Sean Penn’s venture. Sean Penn – All Wet
… {The} Actor, historian and journalist pile into this ridiculous vehicle around noon on Saturday with no real concrete plans beyond a determination to find passage into New Orleans …
Jeff, I agree that there ”…is absolutely no tradition…” regarding the President can run over State sovereignity.
Indeed, I go further: There are no traditions because the Constitution clearly spells out State and Federal authorities. All laws and court rulings concerning State sovereignity are refinements or extrapolations based on the Constitution.
Venkat is wrong to use this trial balloon because there is no “inherent authority” regarding natural disasters within the United States.
Frankly, if there was any inherent authority, there wouldn’t be any Emergency Management Assistance Compact or a National Response Plan. We wouldn’t need them.
But, hey, why let cold, hard facts get in the way of intellectual fanatasies?
So let me get this straight, because Blanco and Nagin did the unconscionable thing of not protecting the State’s largest city from a hurricane, and doing nothing to rescue it’s citizens when the hurricane flooded the city, then Bush should have done the unconstitutional thing of taking over. Yeah, works for me! Not!
Jeff
re: “failed academic” because of stay-at-home-dad
Ah, feel the love of the Tolerant Leftâ„¢ for “freedom of choice”. The stuff of which I’ve had flung at me because I stayed at home for 16 years raising four daughters.
BTW, your wife and you have made the best decision for your son. Kudos.
The situations are not analagous.
Really, this is almost too easy. Could we have the next stupid idea from the left to shoot down, please?
“Failed Academic”?
Hey, those who can, DO, baby.
Those who can’t, teach.
And, of course, those who can’t teach, teach gym.
SB: matter
dark
After looking through “the Poor Man’s Institute” I feel like him calling you a “failed academic” is a bit like Paulie Shore telling Brad Pitt he can’t get girls.
I wouldn’t take it too hard sweetie.
It’s arguments like this that make me wonder if the people making them are ignorant, or disingenuous. The idea that a functional adult could earnestly make such an argument is worrisome.
TW: hours. How many hours did it take to come up with this one? And are there any arguments that get thrown out as being too implausible?
Pretty soon, Andrew The Rocket Scientist (really! just ask him! or read for a few days in a row!) will make up a hugely ironic award in your name, and photoshop something hilarious with a rockstar or a children’s toy. Since he’s a Rocket Scientist, and an un-failed one, he’s very, very busy sciencing rockets, so it might take a little longer than usual. Hang tough.
Aww come on, you have to admit that Njorl’s Sentence of the Week from your post is pretty funny.
This battle over the Danish cartoons highlights all of these philosophical dilemmas (which I have argued previously are the result of certain linguistic misunderstandings that are either cynically or idealistically perpetuated); and so we are brought to the point where this clash of civilizationsâ€â€which in one important sense is a clash between theocratic Islamism and the west, but in another, more crucial sense, is a clash between the west and its own structural thinking, brought on by years of insinuation into our philosophy of what is, at root, collectivist thought that privileges the interpreter of an action over the necessary primacy of intent and agency and personal responsibility to the communicative chainâ€â€could conceivably become manifest over something so seemingly trivial as the right to satirize.â€Â
That’s a 127-word sentence, but in the very next paragraph you complain about your opponents “effectively chilling all speech by defining tolerance in an Orwellian sense of…”
Now, I’m not necessarily saying your overall point is wrong. In fact, I give you credit for writing a 127-word about different senses of a political conflict, and just a paragraph later accuse your opponents of abusing Orwell’s principles. That, sir, takes balls.
* should be “writing a 127-word sentence about…”
Yes, because clearly I’m a qualified editor…
Well, you explained some postmodernism-type thingies to us at the blogger bash in a way that didn’t (a) make us want to die of boredom (b) cause us to bash in your skull with a Guinness mug or (c) rely on our ability to decode post-quantum hermeneutic gibberish.
I CALL THAT FAILURE, MR. ACADEMIC! A successful academic would have had us clawing at our ears and begging for the merciful release of sweet, sweet death.
Of course, we were very drunk at the time.
he was still going by Andrew Northrup and not trying to pick traffic crumbs out of the pudendas of Atrios and Kos like some lowly genital crab.
Hel hath no fury like a failed academic scorned.
So then. Long sentences = Orwellian.
Gotcha. No one can accuse you of not knowing your Orwell. Ahem.
Anyway, let’s forget for a moment that many blog parentheticals are simply convenient ways to add back links within the context of the thought—links Andrew (oops, sorry: The EDITORS) left out when he reproduced my sentence. These act as internal footnotes, if you will. And believe it or not, some folks are able to negotiate them without much trouble.
But let’s not quibble. How about I do this just for you:<blockquote>This battle over the Danish cartoons highlights all of these philosophical dilemmas, which I have argued previously are the result of certain linguistic misunderstandings that are either cynically or idealistically perpetuated. And so we are brought to the point where this clash of civilizations  which in one important sense is a clash between theocratic Islamism and the west, but in another, more crucial sense, is a clash between the west and its own structural thinking, brought on by years of insinuation into our philosophy of what is, at root, collectivist thought that privileges the interpreter of an action over the necessary primacy of intent and agency and personal responsibility to the communicative chain  could conceivably become manifest over something so seemingly trivial as the right to satirize.â€Â<blockquote>Same sentence, really. Just a few changes in the punctuation.
The meaning hasn’t changed. The tone hasn’t changed. All that’s changed is method of punctuation. Was it necessary? No, of course not. But it reduces the number of words in a single sentence, which—THANK JESUS—removes from me the taint of faux-Orwellian HYPOCRISY!
Orwellian = Hard for pinhead to understand
Long sentence = Hard for pinhead to understand
Orwellian = Long sentence
Cyrus, I’m not an expert on Orwell, but are you saying that one of his principles was “Use short sentences?”
Jeff’s 127 word sentence is long, but it’s also clear in meaning.
Cyrus, sorry—my message crossed Jeff’s and BMoe’s, and it was not my intention to repeat their points.
As I seem to recall, idea-crushing brevity was the soul of Newspeak.
But hey, that’s just me.
Four words good, 127 words baaaaaad!
Four words good, 127 words baaaaaad!
Jeff,
The way I see it you use way to many big words. And you could try and throw in something about Britney and Kayne every once in awhile. That’ll keep everyone interested.
Ciao!
PS…And what’s up with the dissin’ of Mariah at the Grammys the other night? That Canadian band You Too really sucks. They’re so old!
Double Ciao!
I considered dissecting the sentence in more detail, but I thought my meaning was clear. Sorry.
As I seem to recall, idea-crushing brevity was the soul of Newspeak.
But hey, that’s just me.
Idea-crushing was the soul of Newspeak. Brevity was just incidental to it. To quote Orwell’s essay “Politics and the English Language” (sorry about the long quote, but I think it’s all relevant):
Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. … Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, “I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so.” Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:
While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.
Which of those do you think looks more like what we’re talking about here?
Since you haven’t seen fit to point to any specific examples of euphemism, question-begging, or sheer cloudy vagueness, I’d have to say: neither one. All you’ve done so far is count words. Are you sure you haven’t got Orwell mixed up with Strunk and White?
Point out my euphemisms and vagueness; point out the question begging. And read around a little bit if you think that, as a writer, I am incapable of calling up mental pictures.
You seem to be mistaking the kind of talk that happens when academics debate topics that are by nature abstract with the kind of speech that is meant to cloud meaning and obfuscate. Your evidence that I am engaging in this is the length of my sentence. Which indicates laziness on your part.
Shouldn’t you be concentrating on content? Or are you content to keep showing yourself for the wannable intellectual you are, Cyrus?
Ooh, sorry, Paul. Crossover.
AND THAT YOUR POINTS AGREE WITH MINE MARKS YOU A FILTHY ORWELLIAN TOTALITARIAN IN TRAINING!
Cyrus, I agree with you in that reading Jeff sometimes makes my head hurt. But my reaction is to conclude the shortcoming is mine. You and I are just different that way.
His writing gives the surface appearance of academic-speak, but I don’t consider it to be so because, unlike many academics, he is saying something and when he breaks it up into those nice size bits with periods, I can even understand it. Which does mean that more periods would be nice, but it doesn’t mean “no periods = Orwellian.”
Oh my god I am so drunk right now
http://www.thepoorman.net/2006/02/10/my-hypocrisy/#comment-13916
[Ed’s note—me too, and yet you’re still ugly as fuck.]
Cyrus, I’ve got to go along with the rest here. If you criticize a sentence for being 127 words long, there is no reason for your readers to assume you’re really talking about euphamisms or clouded meaning.
You’ve simply failed to express your point, and even now you simply made an assertion without backing it up.
Specifically, what euphamisms is Jeff using in his 127 word sentence?
SPQR wrote:
Sadly, it’s all too believable, though it’s only partly ignorance. The other part is ideology. There are some who think that we should never wage war. To those people, having a military is a bad thing. To some next to that group, having a military is okay, so long as it does not do anything military. For these people, the function of the military is to do purely humanitarian work unconnected with national security. The actual Constitution is an obstacle to these worldviews, which is one reason why the “living” Constitution exists.
Ahh, the verdict is in: Cyrus doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
(But nice cut ‘n’ paste job on them quotes!)
Just looked at the comments at that Poor and Stoopid thread–some fine weed bein’ smoked over there. Compared to that “failed third-grade” crowd, “failed academic” is a huge promotion.
I’m on Jeff’s side, but still I thought this crack was pretty good: “Goldstein appears to be supporting the war effort by respecting the recently announced rationing of the use of periods. . . . Of course, then the Editors went and used up all those periods he conserved on a bunch of foreign-looking oomlauts.”
Content it is. Euphemisms and vagueness:
“theocratic Islamism” = Muslims. Or, if you prefer, Islamo-fascism.
“collectivist thought that privileges the interpreter of an action over the necessary primacy of intent and agency and personal responsibility to the communicative chain” = modern liberalism. I wouldn’t describe liberalism like that, but I have the impression you would. If I’m completely wrong and you really don’t think that describes (for example) political correctness at all, then I admit everything I’ve said in this thread is off base and I apologize.
If one of those is an inaccurate abbreviation, I guess that makes me an intellectual wannabe. But if so, can you explain why, exactly, it or they are incomplete or unfair or whatever? They sure look accurate to me.
And so we are brought to the point where this clash of civilizations  which in one important sense is a clash between [Muslims/Islamo-fascism] and the west, but in another, more crucial sense, is a clash between the west and modern liberalism  could conceivably become manifest over something so seemingly trivial as the right to satirize.
Clearly, we would never change each others’ minds about whether the above statement is true. But it’s at least a bit controversial to come right out and say that the clash with modern liberalism is more important than the one with Islamo-fascism (TM). Since you actually asked my opinion rather than just assuming the worst, I don’t think you did it on purpose. It was probably just out of habit, like Tom said. Hence, euphemism and vagueness.
Whoops, sorry I used “hence”. I just keep on showing my true colors as a wannabe intellectual, don’t I.
I had fun in their comments thread. There was even some exciting epistemological discussion interspersed with the namecalling.
You’re joking, right Cyrus? Howsabout you click on some of the links that have to do with language. That will explain the “collectivist thought” thing. And Theocratic Islamism? May be redundant, but it is certainly not euphemistic. Had I used Islamofascism, I’m a wignut. I was attempting to distinguish between those who wish to run a govt. by Sharia law, and those open to democratic reform.
Huh?
Uh, an assertion is not a euphemism. It was, in fact, asserted as a point of debate. And it was hardly vague, either. In fact, it was a rather strong reconsideration of the locus of the problem as I see it.
Give up, please. Or at least, go look up what “euphemism” and “vagueness” mean.
Jeff uses long words with commonly understood meanings in long sentences, in attempt to communicate/persuade/get at the truth.
Failed, but alas still employed, academics use long words with obscure meanings in long sentences in order to convince themselves and a very few valued others how smart they are. You know, like physicists. Who would expect a layman to understand cutting-edge physics, after all?
Hence jargon ad nauseum.
Jeff writes like an academic would who actually is smart and free of physics envy.
Brevity’s still the soul of wit tho, just sayin’
So Jeff, did you go directly from losing that teaching job to working for Talon News, or did you take some time out to blend puppies and stop beating your wife first?
Cyrus, synonyms are not euphamisms.
simply a new iteration of the “chickenhawk†argument
Or simply the same old tired iteration of “I’m smarter than you” condescending horseshit that tool is famous for.
Oh, balls, Jeff. Ward Churchill is a “successful academic.” So is Juan Cole. If I ever suggest that you are, too, do not take it as a compliment.
One of the loose bricks in the Road to Socialism is the tendency of the Cadre, the Vanguard of the Proletariat, to degenerate into an aristocracy. It isn’t inevitable, but more often than not the self-appointed leaders and guides into the brave new world decide that the rabble will go where they’re told by those with the inherent right to direct their inferiors. Academia took that pratfall years ago, and has spent the last few decades, if not the last century, (a) trying to shore up their position as Grand Exalteds and (b) denying that they’re up to any such thing.
A “failed academic” is somebody who managed not to trip over Self-importance and land, full-faced, up to their ears in the muck of Elitism. Take it as the compliment it is, even when the people who issue it think they’re dissing you.
Regards,
Ric
Bezuhov, I must disagree.
In many cases, looking at the other site, brevity is indeed, the soul of twit.
TW: “put”
Like, maybe they should just put a sock in it.
Of course they wouldn’t have cheered in real time. They’re only calling for it now, in “reality-based” time because it didn’t happen and therefore they can twist it into a Bush failing.
Hell, they’ll spin bird flu, if we dodge that particular bullet, as Bush letting the Third World bear an unfair share of the burden of the plague…
By the way, no Libby/NIE placards on the MoveOnBots across the street tonite. Think even they realize it’s a nonstarter, or are the e-mails just slow in going out?
Ric  It isn’t inevitable?
When did it NOT happen?
“Failed academic”, eh? That strikes me as a good thing. If it were true for you, Jeff, I mean. Being a stay-at-home dad is as good as being a stay-at-home mom. Except, of course, that you lack physical aspects of the female half of the human species.
Which is probably a good thing as well, else you wouldn’t be a stay-at-home dad.
Hmmmmmm….maybe I should go to bed early?
So Josh Marshall thinks the President should exercise an “inherent authority” in civil affairs within the country?
That’s called a “king”, sweetie. Bad thing. We shot at one a lot, remember? Or at least the poor conscripted foreign trash he shipped over here…
I, for one, will take Jeff’s writing over any journalist or academic in current practice. I’m really glad I have this lifetime to read one of the most original thinkers of all time. You Rock, my friend.
.
Next up on ProteinWisdom:
TouchPoints by T. Berry Brazleton – Effective Childraising Technique or the Inculcation of Hypocricy in Children?
Jeff Goldstein takes on the parenting industry, exposing experts who advise parents to arguewith their children from a position of bad-faith.
………………………..
Keep in mind Jeff has a limited shelf-life for these types of political arguments. Biology conspired against him.
As a stay-at-home dad with a 2year old, Jeff’s about to discover the joys of having an older Very Highly Mobile Child. 2-3 Year Olds have a velociraptor-like ability to figure out how to open doors and how to bypass child-proofed cabinets. And they DEMAND the attention that does not allow lengthy blog reading and multi-thousand word blog posts.
All is not bleak, however. On the upside, it’s pretty cool to teach your kid how to swim, throw a ball well, count, operate a vacuum cleaner, do light collating, use crayons, and dust.
.
There is a first responder federal agency. It’s been around for a long time. It’s called the “United States Coast Guard”, and they were on scene before, during and after the hurricane. And, if I recall correctly, a marine amphibious group centered on the helicopter carrier USS Battan was following the hurricane so as to be on-scene when the weather cleared to allow flight operations.
To say that federal rescue personnel were not present is to insult those personel who were working long hours at a dangerous job.
Sir, your critics are full of it.
Word: fact. But let’s not let facts get in the way of a good slur.
“Does that make me a “failed academicâ€Â?”
No, it makes you someone who doesn’t agree with them and therefore must be attacked in a vicious and personal way. As with the body armor controversy, they’re not really complaining about what they wish us to believe they’re complaining about anyway.
And anyway, I thought the libs were supposed to be all supportive of nontraditional lifestyle choices and such-like? Guess that’s conditional and open to interpretation, sorta like with most of their other “principles.”
Here’s another point: the first source that comes up on dictionary.com gives nine shades of meaning to the word “academic.” Of those nine, one is positive, four (to my eyes) are neutral, and four are derogatory.
1) Of, relating to, or characteristic of a school, especially one of higher learning.
2) Relating to studies that are liberal or classical rather than technical or vocational.
3) Relating to scholarly performance: a student’s academic average.
4) Of or belonging to a scholarly organization.
5) Scholarly to the point of being unaware of the outside world. See Synonyms at pedantic.
6) Based on formal education.
7) Formalistic or conventional.
8) Theoretical or speculative without a practical purpose or intention. See Synonyms at theoretical.
9) Having no practical purpose or use.
I think Jeff wastes too much time and too many bytes on the ad hominem attacks of his critics, when he should be composing more 127-word sentences to entertain and enlighten us.
Isn’t “failed academic” what those academic types refer to as an oxymoron?
I wouldn’t be too offended, Jeff. After all, these are the same folks that think 1+1=2 is a statement whose truth depends on base and modulus.
Or, worse, that it becomes untrue outside of the context of mathematics, which…well, yes, getting an English or philosophy major to instruct others in the fine points of partial differential equations just might be entertaining, but of little use in actually conveying anything like useful information.
TW: Keep your expectations low.
Well, to be fair, 1+1=1 in boolean math.
Still, that’s just because the same symbols are used to desgnate different operations, in the same way that “pencils” mean “yellow wooden #2 Ticonderogas” to you and me and “art that is ready to be inked” to a comic book publisher.