George Will must be feeling frisky

[nonniey]

If he did, why did he specifically name Obama and Pelosi in the article, and not mention the behavior of the previous White House which openly mocked the idea of being accountable to Congress?

Answer: because Will is a shameless partisan hack like the rest of them.

I see you still didn't read the article or even what mardi gras provided with his response.

---------- Post added January-18th-2011 at 12:07 AM ----------

?????

How can you be exceptional without being elite? Aren't they pretty synonymous?

Don't we want to be the elite military power

have elite soldiers and marines

the elite car maker

have elite workers and designers

the elite software designers

the elite chip makers

the elite minds

I guess you can believe in eceptionalism and not want to be elite, but only if you want to be exceptionally bad.

Actually, we have no problems being elite, as in the Americans are the elite it's just we've always had a problem with having an elite within our own society. In otherwords it's allright for us (Americans) to be the top dog (in everything) but we don't like it when some take that position with fellow Americans.

[Burgold]

I am honestly very much surprised to hear this. Is this based on personal experience? I always thought this "liberals hate America" stuff was mostly made up.

In my experience it is. Conservatives tend to love the trappings of America. Liberals tend to love America's ideals, values, spirit, and Constitution. Liberals love Freedom. Conservative hate Freedom (Fries). Can't be more conclusive than that.

[nonniey]

Noam Chomsky comes to mind. Here is his Z page: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/noamchomsky

Well, I'd think he'd prefer someone that actually loves his country (and yes I think liberals or at least most liberals do) as opposed to someone, such as Chomsky who would prefer that the United States had never existed and hopes for the end of that existance as soon as possible.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

The new season of Bill Maher on HBO started this past weekend. I'm just posting this because it touches directly on the whole "elites" thing, starting at 2:42. Maybe it'll add something to the discussion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AriZDcyblbA

BTW, I'm tired of the whole Tea Party folk being called teabaggers thing. It was lame the first time it was done.

[Larry]

BTW, I'm tired of the whole Tea Party folk being called teabaggers thing. It was lame the first time it was done.

I'm tired of people who want the government to monitor all travel and communication in the world, to kidnap and torture people at will, and hold them forever without due process, saying "I'm for limited government", because they think that helping poor people buy health insurance from a private company is a Communist plot to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids.

Don't think I'm gonna be getting my wish, either.

[Baculus]

BTW, I'm tired of the whole Tea Party folk being called teabaggers thing. It was lame the first time it was done.

The Tea Partiers, unfortunately for them, first used that term to describe themselves. It stuck. And you know how nicknames are once they are used. . . .

---------- Post added January-18th-2011 at 05:23 AM ----------

I'm tired of people who want the government to monitor all travel and communication in the world, to kidnap and torture people at will, and hold them forever without due process, saying "I'm for limited government", because they think that helping poor people buy health insurance from a private company is a Communist plot to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids.

Don't think I'm gonna be getting my wish, either.

I wouldn't hold my breath on that, but maybe some people will have an epiphany when the dust settles.

[mjah]

This post contains far more words than the subject deserves. Apologies, but it's my way. :pfft:

Wrong.

Sorry, but I am correct on that aspect of the Founding Fathers' legacy and your claim is simply less accurate. You don't need assistance from others to demonstrate that you are off-base, but in this thread you've certainly received that assistance in spades anyway!

This kills me:

While they feared rule by mobocracy, their ideals of people being endowed with inalienable rights, and a government based on a constitution LIMITING government, puts them firmly on the "populist" even "radical" side of their time.

Thank you sir! Based on this and other bits in your post, it's splendid to see you acknowledge not only my original point (preceded by others in this thread), but also the follow-on point I made as I accompanied you on that unrelated social-status tangent of yours. Now we're back to acknowledging the FFs as the predominantly intellectual elites that they most certainly were, despite their often-privileged connections.

Much obliged. I guess we can consider this point closed then.

Rather than intellectual elitism in papers between peers, two of the more prominent thinkers back then made many of their statements as part of the lower-class "media" to the masses back then.

So your point is... they made heavy use of multiple forms of custom-suited communication to accomplish their goals? They used their formidable intellectual elitism to drive communication with each other, but utilized a different style on those occasions when they wanted to communicate their ideas to others? A principle which many of today's more prominent thinkers also closely follow?

Well, obviously I agree, as the FFs' deft combination of intellectual elitism with common touch was never at issue in the first place. That's another point closed. Most excellent.

Of course, your use of "Rather than" might be interpreted to suggest some greater "either-or" dilemma between high-minded intellectual elitism and mass communication. But surely anyone taking that away from your sentence would be making a grave mistake, no? Because such a belief would be absurdly inaccurate.

(Never mind that modern academics don't really hew to that "private communication" archetype with their important works anyway. Inquire at your local public university library for miles of proof.)

Geez, why are you getting all upset about this article?

Upset? No. Entertained? Oh, yes! Presume much? :pfft:

If that article is worth "a lifetime of caricature", what do you think of Barrack "I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go." Obama, or John "Across this country this is the agenda I have set before my fellow prisoners. And the same standards of clarity and candor must now be applied to my opponent." McCain?

Wait, so you believe a full George Will article equates to some spontaneous utterance from the mouth of a career politician?

Surely you didn't mean to suggest that. Aside from making no sense at all, your McCain/Obama canard would make your continued defense of Will's lowest-decile work totally incomprehensible.

Perhaps it's fair to say that a slip of the tongue equals a slip of the pen. Will committed no slips of the pen in that article. And as proof of my commitment to that distinction, I won't subject you to "a lifetime of caricature" just because you misspelled the President's first name in the above quote. After all, it was unimportant: just a slip of the finger.

(You absolutely should perceive a huge grin as you read this, despite your apparent belief that I have something against Will or his work. I have no such agenda, but I'm happy to ridicule any lofty thinker's more misguided decisions.)

Again, sooooo "not purple" on your part, mjah.

Uh-huh. I'll happily accept the "not purple" criticism from someone who's in a position of repeatedly demonstrated credibility. Some examples of these folks can be found in this very thread. Hi guys! But sorry, no offense HailGreen: not from you. At least not in this thread. Be more forthcoming about your own biases and get your facts squared up a bit -- as I have -- and maybe you'll have a stronger position. I'm not trying to be a jerk here -- you're just throwing off your back foot.

[tl;dr: I know you are but what am I?]

[DCSaints_fan]

Well, I'd think he'd prefer someone that actually loves his country (and yes I think liberals or at least most liberals do) as opposed to someone, such as Chomsky who would prefer that the United States had never existed and hopes for the end of that existance as soon as possible.

Perhaps Chomsky is so critical of the U.S., precisely because he loves it .... or is at the very least least concerned for it.

I would say that he only wants to see the end of the US in the sense that he wants to see the end of all states ... though he has always been a bit vague on this point. I remember an interview he gave when asked about the Israeli-Palestian Conflict, whether he favored a one-or two state solution, he said something along the lines of wanting a "no-state" solution

[Madison Redskin]

I am honestly very much surprised to hear this. Is this based on personal experience? I always thought this "liberals hate America" stuff was mostly made up.

It is very much indeed based on personal experience. I think that younger liberals (at least many younger liberals I know) are somewhat likely to have some disdain for, or distrust, people who are too vocal in expressing a love of country. In my experience, they think that doing so amounts to nationalism/xenophobia. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that liberals hate 'Merica. I just think that some of them tend to look down on people who wave the flag a lot. That bothers me.

[alexey]

It is very much indeed based on personal experience. I think that younger liberals (at least many younger liberals I know) are somewhat likely to have some disdain for, or distrust, people who are too vocal in expressing a love of country. In my experience, they think that doing so amounts to nationalism/xenophobia. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that liberals hate 'Merica. I just think that some of them tend to look down on people who wave the flag a lot. That bothers me.

I can see this happening if people are expressing a love of country in a way that includes partisan talking points. Sort of like how George Will is expressing American exceptionalism, but in reality he is just bashing a strawman carricature of liberals/progressives.

[Stadium-Armory]

It is very much indeed based on personal experience. I think that younger liberals (at least many younger liberals I know) are somewhat likely to have some disdain for, or distrust, people who are too vocal in expressing a love of country. In my experience, they think that doing so amounts to nationalism/xenophobia. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that liberals hate 'Merica. I just think that some of them tend to look down on people who wave the flag a lot. That bothers me.

To add to this point.. I think there is some skepticism that some (liberal or otherwise) might have with respect to flag waiving, but in my personal experience with this, it is not always unfounded. An occasion that comes to mind for me personally, was listening to an interview with Tommy Franks following his speech at the 2004 Republican national convention. I recall him saying something to this effect: "Your country above all else." , in the context of supporting the war in Iraq. It occurred to me at the time that this was misplaced patriotism. My country, above what is right and just? No thank you - I can use my own judgement to decide if something is right or wrong. It is precisely FOR love of country, and pride in who we are, that we should always ask questions. And that should not be confused with being un-patriotic, in my opinion it is the opposite.

[Madison Redskin]

It occurred to me at the time that this was misplaced patriotism. My country, above what is right and just? No thank you - I can use my own judgement to decide if something is right or wrong. It is precisely FOR love of country, and pride in who we are, that we should always ask questions. And that should not be confused with being un-patriotic, in my opinion it is the opposite.

I completely agree. Patriots will demand that their government to do what is right for the country, even if reasonable people disagree as to what is right and what is not. I also agree that too many conservatives ignore America's shortcomings. However, I think too many younger liberals ignore America's greatness and think that "booing America" is just as patriotic as voicing genuine dissent.

[Stadium-Armory]

I for one, love me some America!

[Larry]

I just think that some of them tend to look down on people who wave the flag a lot.

Perhaps it's because they've seen so many power-hungry politicians wrap themselves in it? :halo:

[Madison Redskin]

Perhaps it's because they've seen so many power-hungry politicians wrap themselves in it? :halo:

Many politicians are shady characters. Many politicians kiss babies. Therefore, people who kiss babies are shady characters.

Okay, people who kiss others' babies might be shady.

[HailGreen28]

This post contains far more words than the subject deserves. Apologies, but it's my way. :pfft:

Sorry, but I am correct on that aspect of the Founding Fathers' legacy and your claim is simply less accurate. You don't need assistance from others to demonstrate that you are off-base, but in this thread you've certainly received that assistance in spades anyway!

This kills me:

Thank you sir! Based on this and other bits in your post, it's splendid to see you acknowledge not only my original point (preceded by others in this thread), but also the follow-on point I made as I accompanied you on that unrelated social-status tangent of yours. Now we're back to acknowledging the FFs as the predominantly intellectual elites that they most certainly were, despite their often-privileged connections.

Much obliged. I guess we can consider this point closed then.

You know, in another thread, I commented on how some people losing an argument would resort to trying to claim victory on points, where they hadn't proven anything. And here you go with a boatload of posts to that effect. Since you aren't actually addressing my points, I guess all I can say is thanks for agreeing with me?

So your point is... they made heavy use of multiple forms of custom-suited communication to accomplish their goals? They used their formidable intellectual elitism to drive communication with each other, but utilized a different style on those occasions when they wanted to communicate their ideas to others? A principle which many of today's more prominent thinkers also closely follow?

Well, obviously I agree, as the FFs' deft combination of intellectual elitism with common touch was never at issue in the first place. That's another point closed. Most excellent.

Glad we agree on that.

Of course, your use of "Rather than" might be interpreted to suggest some greater "either-or" dilemma between high-minded intellectual elitism and mass communication. But surely anyone taking that away from your sentence would be making a grave mistake, no? Because such a belief would be absurdly inaccurate.

(Never mind that modern academics don't really hew to that "private communication" archetype with their important works anyway. Inquire at your local public university library for miles of proof.)

Oh for.... just when I think that you're thinking instead of knee-jerking, mjah! The point is important because of what support the FF were garnering, instead of garnering support the high class way back then. Hint: Ever hear of "letters of correspondence" between peers and organizations? Compare that to the paying audience of newspapers and pamphlets back then. It's not a black and white distinction, but still a stark difference. Again, thanks for conceding my points.

Upset? No. Entertained? Oh, yes! Presume much? :pfft:

As for Will: You may have missed his senior-moment column all about blue jeans. You know, the one titled "Demon Denim." Despite Will's attempts to make it humorous, he earned himself a lifetime of "ridiculous caricature" for that one. I went far easier on him than others have, so you can relax.

By the way: if you want to take that earlier post of mine as somehow "not purple," then your perceptive skills might be IDEALLY suited for my awesome new club. See sig for details, and be sure to ask me about the Space Shuttle!

This post contains far more words than the subject deserves. Apologies, but it's my way. :pfft:

Oh the lady doeth protest too much, I think. In between these condescending posts, you're definitely butt-hurt by something about Will. I'm just wondering if it's personal, political, or you work for a jeans company.

Wait, so you believe a full George Will article equates to some spontaneous utterance from the mouth of a career politician?

Surely you didn't mean to suggest that. Aside from making no sense at all, your McCain/Obama canard would make your continued defense of Will's lowest-decile work totally incomprehensible.

Perhaps it's fair to say that a slip of the tongue equals a slip of the pen. Will committed no slips of the pen in that article. And as proof of my commitment to that distinction, I won't subject you to "a lifetime of caricature" just because you misspelled the President's first name in the above quote. After all, it was unimportant: just a slip of the finger.

(You absolutely should perceive a huge grin as you read this, despite your apparent belief that I have something against Will or his work. I have no such agenda, but I'm happy to ridicule any lofty thinker's more misguided decisions.)

No, but nice try at shifting the goalposts of this point. You referred to Will's article as a "senior moment" deserving "a lifetime" of caricature. I gave you some REALLY bad senior moments, and you try splitting hairs instead of staying consistent.

Ummm, yeah, I put an extra "r" in Barack's first name. That so affects the substance of what I posted. Corrected and thanks for being classy about that....

Uh-huh. I'll happily accept the "not purple" criticism from someone who's in a position of repeatedly demonstrated credibility. Some examples of these folks can be found in this very thread. Hi guys! But sorry, no offense HailGreen: not from you. At least not in this thread. Be more forthcoming about your own biases and get your facts squared up a bit -- as I have -- and maybe you'll have a stronger position. I'm not trying to be a jerk here -- you're just throwing off your back foot.

Ummmm, thanks for agreeing with me since you never refuted my points. Have a nice day.

[tl;dr: I know you are but what am I?]

I'm assuming a child of yours got on your PC, and added this. Again, have a nice day.

[mjah]

Still unable to admit your logical shortcomings? Well, at least you were able to specify your Joel-vs.-Mike preferences without stepping in it. If only you could have done the same in this thread. Too bad.

You know, in another thread, I commented on how some people losing an argument would resort to trying to claim victory on points, where they hadn't proven anything.

Just like you did, in that very post I'm quoting? Yep, that's a real shame. My posts had the benefit of actually having history and logic supporting them. Yours, not so much.

You know, in another thread, I commented on how some people think it's more important to "beat" the person they're debating with, rather then recognizing that it's often more useful to convince others -- lurkers, other posters, etc. -- of their points. Credibility with your facts and interpretations goes a long way toward that end. Acting deliberately dense does exactly the opposite. And here you go with a boatload of posts to that effect. Do you intentionally emulate every single thing you try to criticize in others, or is that just coincidence?

The rest of your post is largely worthless. Only a couple of things worth mentioning, and then only barely:

you're definitely butt-hurt by something about Will.

Nope. You're apparently just having trouble discerning between the fun I was having and the Serious Business you're trying oh-so-hard to wring from it. You'll just have to be wrong on this one.

Of course, you're a bigger fan of Will's than you're willing to admit -- that's the real "butt-hurt"ing going on here. Of course you won't own up to that, despite your continuous efforts to defend his work against wholly imagined Serious Business attacks. Hey HailGreen28, is that a Golden Helmet on your head -- or just a shaving basin? :pfft:

Ummm, yeah, I put an extra "r" in Barack's first name. That so affects the substance of what I posted. Corrected and thanks for being classy about that....

Anyone who read what I wrote, and then read what you wrote here in response, surely will laugh at you for this one. Just give up.

Again: criticize when you're better at it, and when you can be honest about it. A good set of history books will help you immensely too.

[HailGreen28]

Still unable to admit your logical shortcomings? Well, at least you were able to specify your Joel-vs.-Mike preferences without stepping in it. If only you could have done the same in this thread. Too bad.

Just like you did, in that very post I'm quoting? Yep, that's a real shame. My posts had the benefit of actually having history and logic supporting them. Yours, not so much.

You know, in another thread, I commented on how some people think it's more important to "beat" the person they're debating with, rather then recognizing that it's often more useful to convince others -- lurkers, other posters, etc. -- of their points. Credibility with your facts and interpretations goes a long way toward that end. Acting deliberately dense does exactly the opposite. And here you go with a boatload of posts to that effect. Do you intentionally emulate every single thing you try to criticize in others, or is that just coincidence?

The rest of your post is largely worthless. Only a couple of things worth mentioning, and then only barely:

Nope. You're apparently just having trouble discerning between the fun I was having and the Serious Business you're trying oh-so-hard to wring from it. You'll just have to be wrong on this one.

Of course, you're a bigger fan of Will's than you're willing to admit -- that's the real "butt-hurt"ing going on here. Of course you won't own up to that, despite your continuous efforts to defend his work against wholly imagined Serious Business attacks. Hey HailGreen28, is that a Golden Helmet on your head -- or just a shaving basin? :pfft:

Anyone who read what I wrote, and then read what you wrote here in response, surely will laugh at you for this one. Just give up.

Again: criticize when you're better at it, and when you can be honest about it. A good set of history books will help you immensely too.

Concession(s) accepted on things that differentiated the FF from other leaders of their time, and the literary brilliance of columnists like George Will. Thanks! Hope you get over being upset soon.