Good morning.
- Jet lag, and rat research.
- Marxist paranoia … begging the question if the flue requires close contact of human, avian, and porcine populations … where are the birds and people in that particular scenario?
- If your choices however historically have proven good … why does it matter that your explanation is not necessarily right.
- Ancient gadgetry.
- Yes, I think it shows the artist is “an idiot” too … although idiot might not be my first choice of terminology. How about blinkered fool or should the term “pander” get in their somewhere.
- Peace?
- Macrina suggests her next close reading project.
- Will retractions and corrections fly in a flurry … or not? And if not why not?
- On the obscenity in broadcasting judgement. I think in discussions what is being missed is that the SCOTUS doesn’t (rightly) adjudicate on what is ethical or moral but if the law penned by Congress and the action in question are Constitutional.
- Eudaimonia read wrongly or at least a very non-Aristotelian take on pursuit of happiness.
- Mr Bush and Mr Obama, two (Jacobin) birds of a feather?
- Manliness matters.
- Torture and pacifism conjoined.
- History repeats.
- A possible shift, explanations requested.
- A conversation which should embarrass liberals.
- What separates the casual user from the addict on the bike, I don’t think I ever get on a bike without checking tire pressure first.
- A “profuse” apology? or defining apology down.
- Please. If “everyone” makes new music … then that new music will suck. A great percentage of new music by people with training and talent sucks … just think if people without training or talent start making music. Oh, joy.
- Asceticism and American piety.
A “profuse” apology? or defining apology down.
I’m noticing the right spends a lot, a real lot, of time on what can best be called nitpicking criticism of Obama. There’s no actual disagreement with anything Obama says or does, just hyperventilating over how he does it. The administration took responsibility for the flyby, said it was a mistake and apologized. In the annals of history this wasn’t anything like, say, the trail of tears.
I noticed this with the pirate standoff. First Obama was bashed for not ‘making a statement’. Then when the thing ended well, Sean Hannity was on Obama’s case because the White House quietly stated that Obama gave the order authorizing the use of force. That was ‘stealing credit’ from the brave soldiers and Obama should have spent twenty minutes telling the world he was nothing and they were everything blah blah blah.
Boonton,
I’m not criticizing Obama at all for the “profuse” apology and neither I think is the post linked. The coverage described it as a profuse apology, which it was not. I don’t care one way or another about the nature of the apology qua apology.
And I’m not criticizing you for alleging Obama failed to apologize enough, I’m criticizing a style of Obama criticism that I think concentrates on nitpicking over substance. Sure technically this piece targets the media for how they described the apology and tries to imagine how they would describe a hypothetical apology from Bush (offhand did Bush apologize for anything ever?), but since the right often seems to consider the Media to be just another wing of the Obama machine it might as well be an Obama criticism so its fine as an illustration.
A conversation which should embarrass liberals.
Why? That sounded exactly like every religious person I’ve ever heard trying to defend their religion. “I’m entitled to my beliefs and you have to respect them!”
What’s it got to do with liberalism?