I have always thought that Joyce was overrated a bit (yeah, yeah, I know, Joyce is a genius, what have I ever written, etc, etc, etc. Sorry, but the kinds of stylistic games he played did not work as consistently as the majority of critics seem to think they did. At least for me, they too often swamped the story and the characters and seemed to be there for the sake of being there) but there is a rather interesting discussion on Joyce, Modernism and Modernisms place in literature over at Slate.
June 16th, 2004
|
Writing |
5 comments
I was channel surfing recently at a friend’s house; I happened upon an old “Andy Griffith Show” episode, and started to watch. (I don’t have TV service myself, so when I do stumble into contact with actual . . . uh, what’s the word? . . . “programs” . . . I tend to gawk at the box like it’s 1936 and I’ve never seen one before).
What I found was a lost nation, and a right world gone wrong.
June 16th, 2004
|
Politics, Legal Issues, Culture |
22 comments
Late last month, Joe at Evangelical Outpost questioned liberals’ use of the term “dishonest” in reference to the Bush Administration. It was a telling rant (and, frankly, insulting):
My assessment, however, is completely wrong; it appears that liberals actually don’t view truth as something which is empirically verifiable. Their primary contention that “Bush lied” was founded on claims that Saddam had WMDs and ties to Al Queda. You would expect that when evidence of WMDs was found and Saddam’s ties to Al Queda were established that they would admit that Bush hadn’t lied after all.
But that didn’t happen. Instead, their cries of dishonesty grew even louder. It’s almost as if they truly believe that reality is a social construct and that if they repeat the claim often enough it will become “true.”
Let me offer some unsolicited advice to those on the Left: stop claming “Bush is dishonest.” While it may make you and your ilk feel better, no one else is buying it. In fact, it’s hard to take you seriously when those on the Left stood by Clinton as he looked all of us in the eye and lied to our faces.
…snip…
Besides, one of the problems with the truth is that it can be verified. If Bush is a liar then those on the left should be able to prove it. But they can’t. They don’t even believe they have to. While they may not be able to prove that Bush lied, they feel it in their gut. And, for them, feelings are as valid as facts.
Pretty scathing stuff. In the comments, Joe was summarily lambasted (by myself and several others), but never did concede that the word “dishonest” could rightly be applied to Bush and his Administration.
Why do I bring this up now? Because in the wake of the GOP-led, bipartisan 9/11 Commission’s finding that there’s “no credible evidence” of a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, coupled with Bush and Cheney’s continued insistence that there is such a link, I’m wondering if he has reconsidered that opinion yet. And if not, what would it take to get him to reconsider it?
Not to unfairly single out Joe and pick on him; his was the most condescending of the blog posts I’ve read to that effect, but it was far from unique. It really seems that there isn’t anything in this world that could convince certain people on the right that they were sold a bill of goods concerning the war in Iraq as it relates to the war on terror.
UPDATE: Some (including Joe, and SayUncle in the comments) accuse “the Left” of moving the goal posts on the issue of Iraq/al-Qaeda links:
I predict that we will see some goalpost moving on this one. At first the Left claimed there was no link to al Qaeda. Since that has been established, they’ll dismiss it and claim that no significant link has been proven. What comes after that? Will they claim that Bush has failed to establish a family connection between Saddam and bin Laden?
Sorry, but the only goal post moving here has been by the right. Whatevery tenuous “links” have been established — and make no mistake, they’re little more than rumor and innuendo — they don’t even come close to vindicating statements like this:
Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.
Emphasis mine. The President told the American people that Saddam Hussein personally aids and protects members of al-Qaeda. There has to date been zero evidence to back up that claim. If “the Left” has an expectation that the administration will prove a personal relationship between Hussein and al-Qaeda, it’s because Bush himself set that expecation in January of 2003.
I’m sorry, but you have to drink a lot of Kool-Aid to think that this somehow constitutes the Left wanting to move the goal posts…
Also, never mind the merits of Joe’s repeated insistence that nobody on the Left has conclusively proved Bush lied about anything, because that misses the point. Joe didn’t say just that the Left was wrong about Bush being dishonest. He essentially said that the Left was either unreasonable or themselves dishonest in accusing Bush of dishonesty. That’s a whole different animal. It’s one thing to disagree with someone; it’s quite another to accuse the people with whom you disagree — as a group — of being idiots, intellectually dishonest, or both.
June 16th, 2004
|
Politics, Iraq, Terrorism |
19 comments
Jeanne wants to know why people blog:
For a couple of years, I’ve been reading about two dozen left-wing blogs a day, and a few more on the right. I’m finding it harder and harder, as evidence of the corruption in this government mounts, to read the ones on the right. In the past left-wing blogs gave me information I would have missed otherwise, and made me feel that my perceptions of what was going on in the world were shared by lots of people. But I’m starting to feel that all we’re saying is “Bad Bush,” which is a perfect legitimate thing to say, but I’m not sure hundreds of us need to say it.
I’m not sure anymore why people write blogs, and why people read them. So I guess I’m trying to start a conversation. What do you get from blogs that you wouldn’t get elsewhere? Why are they worth reading? Why are they worth writing?
I do this for a lot of reasons, obviously, the same way that people do anything they aren’t paid for for a lot of reasons. I have always been a politics junkie. Well, no, I have always been an argument junkie — if I couldn’t argue about politics, I doubt I would be as interested in it. I started the blog in part to hopefully improve my writing skills, but mostly for the fun of having the arguments. The blog has turned into something that occasionally allows me to help causes I believe in in a more tangible fashion, but it is still primarily about the conversations with commentators and other bloggers. I think of blogs as the digital equivalent of conversations with your neighbors. It is just that your neighborhood is a lot larger than it ever could have been before. And your neighbors find information that you probably would have missed yourself.
In terms of Jeanne’s question, then, I think there is a lot of value in a hundred people saying “Torture is bad.” — particularly in the case of someone as eloquent as Jeanne. Because sometimes decent people, out of fear or a misplaced loyalty or a lack of information, can be convinced that torture is not wrong. Someone reading Jeanne’s work would be hard pressed to hold that opinion at the end. Jeanne’s work also provides ammunition for her readers in their conversations in the real world.
Which is, I think, the point. Democracies are just a series of conversations. Blogs are one more way to have those conversations, and one more way to understand the conversations people around you are having. Everyone who writes a blog hopes that something they have written has caused a reader to think about an issue harder than they would have normally, or, even, started to change someone’s mind. It’s no different than talking to your neighbors, your co-workers, your friends.
June 16th, 2004
|
Bloggin |
6 comments
And yes, it hurt to write that. But let’s face it: They didn’t just beat the Lakers; they handed the Lakers their asses. Los Angeles was lucky to win the one game they did win. And as much as I’m not a fan of Detroit (the city or the team), I love the style of basketball they used to win it all. Unselfish play, team defense, challenge every shot; no superstar egos. You’d almost think basketball is a team sport or something. Personally, I’m sick of 120-117 games, and I’ll gladly take 88-80 over that.
Adding insult to injury, there were no major incidents in Detroit (rioting, looting, overturned/burning cars, etc.), meaning that even Detroit is a much more graceful city in winning than Los Angeles is. Take that, Jimmy Kimmel! Seems I also owe Detroit an apology for my Zucker-brothers-inspired years of Detroit-bashing. So here goes:
“Sorry, motor city! You have earned my respect, for the moment.”
- tgirsch
P.S. The Red Wings and Lions are still evil incarnate.
Congratulations to the Pistons and their fans.
Detroit 100, Los Angeles 87
June 16th, 2004
|
Sports |
3 comments
Something that will probably not get a lot of attention but should is
June 16th, 2004
|
Terrorism |
one comment
Let the cries of “partisanship!” begin. The bi-partisan, Republican chaired 9/11 Commission has stated that there was evidence of a link between
June 16th, 2004
|
Iraq |
7 comments
Back in February, I put together an Iraq War Refresher Course, which I called a “handy list of Responses to Faulty and/or Post-Hoc Iraq War Justificationstm.”
In the months since, little has changed in Iraq, except that things have gotten worse. Still, some additional information has come available, so I figured another update was in order. I’ve addressed an Al Gore quote that is being taken out of context, as well as the discovery of the sarin shell — which is not the slam dunk some on the far-right would have you believe. And it’s looking more and more like one of our biggest Iraqi intelligence sources was likely a spy for Iran, opening the question of whether or not the US was used as a tool to fulfill an Iranian agenda. UPDATE 5/28: Pointed out that Clinton’s quotes concerning WMDs from 1998 were justifying air strikes he ordered with the stated purpose of destroying WMD caches.
UPDATE 6/16: The bi-partisan, GOP-chaired 9/11 Commission found no credible evidence of a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda.
As before, feel free to link, excerpt, yada yada yada, the next time some neo-con comes along regurgitating the same old talking points.
Continue reading for the typical talking points and their rebuttals.
June 16th, 2004
|
Iraq, Terrorism |
14 comments
