WASHINGTON DIARIST MARCH 14, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Desperate times call for desperate measures, and so the other day I read Rachel Maddow’s new book. It is called Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power, and it is an anthropologically useful document of the new American disaffection with American force. Written in the same perky self-adoring voice that makes her show so excruciating, it offers some correct observations about certain lamentable trends in the American military— its reliance on contractors, its exploitation of reservists, its surfeit of nuclear weapons; but its righteous aim is to make the use of force itself seem absurd. (Maddow is an absurdity artist, who thinks that all you have to do to refute something is to make fun of it.) What offends her is “the artificial primacy of defense among our national priorities.” She champions “the disincentives to war deliberately built into our American system of government,” which were established by the Founders “not to disadvantage us against any future enemies, but to disincline us toward war as a general matter. Their great advice was that we should structure ourselves as a country in a way that deliberately raised the price of admission to any war.” Maddow adverts to the Founders a lot, proving again that originalism is just the search for a convenient past, a political sport played with key words. She cites Jefferson, in 1792: “One of my favorite ideas is, never to keep an unnecessary soldier.” This, of course, raises the question of how “necessary” shall be defined; and it is worth noting that the subject of Jefferson’s unmilitaristic remark was the sleepy condition of our border with Canada. She cites Jefferson’s sixth presidential message, in 1806: “Were armies to be raised whenever a speck of war is visible in our horizon ... our resources would have been exhausted on dangers which never happened, instead of being reserved for what is really to take place,” but omits his subsequent report of various military preparations that he organized to “maintain the public interests while a more permanent force shall be in course of preparation.” “Much will depend,” he urgently added, “on the promptitude with which these means can be brought into activity.” But forget the footnotes. Maddow is one of those better people who believe that nobody who supports a war can possibly understand what a war is. The other day, in one of his only-adult-in-the-room moments, Obama asserted that “we have not launched a war” against Iran’s nuclear installations because “this is not a game. There’s nothing casual about it.” Who says it’s a game? Obama is still running against Bush and Cheney, to whom Maddow owes a similar debt. About Syria, the president taught that “the notion that the way to solve every one of these problems is to deploy our military, that hasn’t been true in the past and it won’t be true now. We’ve got to think through what we do.”
SO LET US think it through. Before he went to meet with Bashar al Assad, Kofi Annan said (according to a report in a Turkish weekly) that “I believe any further militarization will make this situation worse. We have to be careful that we don’t introduce a medicine that’s worse than the disease,” and that he aimed to reach a political settlement through dialogue. Dialogue! Buber’s, or Bakhtin’s? Annan’s mission promptly failed, and Assad promptly began the assault on Idlib. In Washington the usual excuses, familiar from Bosnia to Libya, were offered: the global isolation of the perpetrators (which is incorrect, since they always have Russia); the terrifying might of the Syrian army; the obscurity, or the disunity, of the opposition; the hidden hand of Islamists and terrorists; and so on. Meanwhile the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff blurted out to Congress that “we can do anything,” thereby vitiating the plaintive appeal to the limitations of American competence. There are Arab states agitating for action to stop the slaughter, and arming the Free Syrian Army, whose ranks are growing. But Obama refuses to consider any direct or indirect application of force. “What’s happening in Syria is heartbreaking and outrageous,” he said, bearing witness again, as in 2009, when witness was all he was prepared to bear for the democratic rebellion in Iran. “The world community has said so in a more or less unified voice.” But Assad is strangely unseduced by its voice. “We are going to continue to work on this project with other countries.” Pipelines have been announced with more passion. “And it is my belief that, ultimately, this dictator will fall, as dictators in the past have fallen.” But not without mountains of corpses, sir. Are we really to rely on the good offices of fate? All this is what Maddow would call bullpucky. I would prefer that our leaders were more candid and simply said that they can live with the murder of innocents and the destruction of democratic aspirations and the regional influence of the mullah and the madman in Tehran because immediate and effective action against these circumstances would contradict their conception of American power. As for Iran: there is indeed too much talk of war, and also too much talk of Auschwitz. The sanctions are unexpectedly harsh and unprecedentedly crippling, and they are about to get still more severe. There is still time, though only a few people know how much. A change of government in Tehran would be the best solution, but the democracy click is ticking more slowly than the nuclear clock. (“TICK FUCKING TOCK,” as ACT UP used to say.) Yet there can be no certainty that the sanctions will depose the regime or persuade it to abandon its nuclear aspirations. Such an eventuality must be faced. For this reason, there is nothing Strangelovian about the discussion of force. A military strike may be a bad idea—the results may be insufficient, the costs may be too high; but the contemplation of it is not war fever.
TRASHING FORCE may win you a lot of friends, but it is stupid. There is nothing “artificial” about the primacy of defense because there is nothing artificial about threats and conflicts and atrocities. The American political system’s “disinclination” to war must not be promoted into a disinclination to history. We are not the country we were in the eighteenth century, as every liberal insists about every other dimension of American policy. Anyway, this is what President Jefferson said in 1806: “Our duty is, therefore, to act upon things as they are, and to make a reasonable provision for whatever they may be.”
Leon Wieseltier is the literary editor of The New Republic. This article appeared in the April 5, 2012 issue of the magazine.
82 comments
Oh good. You're still on board. Good to see.
- basman
March 15, 2012 at 12:06am
And you'll be the first to sign up for service, right? Bloodthirsty coward hack.
- bunthorne
March 15, 2012 at 12:34am
I think your first mistake was reading Maddow's book. I'm sure there are some good points in it (as you noted) but ultimately it is not reflective of any serious policy discussions, and is more likely just what passes for being a moderate in Northhampton nowadays. Your second, and much larger mistake, is trying to lump Obama's policies in with Maddow's views and Kofi Annan's actions. Obama has shown no hesitation of using force when he has judged the balance of negative cost/casualties/foreign relations costs to be outweighed by the good that can be accomplished. The administration's current reluctance toward military intervention is Syria has absolutely nothing to do with their conception of American power. It has everything to do with the "mountains of corpses" you mention. I suspect it also has a lot to do with the administration's judgement of how long the "Arab states agitating for action" will stick around when things begin to get difficult.
- Attrill
March 15, 2012 at 12:55am
Wieseltier has form snarking at Maddow for being self-adoring. Not that this criticism doesn't have some bite against Maddow, but Wieseltier himself has done more to discredit the primacy of force, and humanitarian interventionist generally, than just about anyone on the liberal side that I can think of except perhaps Lieberman and O'Hanlon. I can think of few people so impressed by their own prolixity and the trappings of moral bombast conflated with moral clarity, and few people who are as poorly served by their intellectual powersin carrying out a true moral calculus for going to war, jus ad bellum. If Wieseltier was not biologically incapable of keeping his powder dry, he could make a coherent case.
- Willf
March 15, 2012 at 1:15am
Despite qualifying for the draft during the Vietnam War, I have never served in a war. (Long comment on this theme in Peretz last article.) Despite no talent for violence, and a generally peaceful approach to life, I have at various times in my life found myself on the edge of violence and danger. Humans are both vicious killers and benevolent caretakers. Ethically, any sensible person realizes we have the right to defend ourselves against native sociopaths (less than 5% of the human population) and against infected sociopaths such as Hitler's Nazis and Stalin and Mao's Communists. The trouble is that refusing to kill is stupid nonsense and "killing for peace" and fighting wars to end wars has never worked, either. "But let it be. Horatio, I am dead; Thou livest; report me and my cause aright To the unsatisfied."--Hamlet I await with interest something new to be said on this topic. You! Whoever posts next! Tell me something about violence and humanity that has not been said before!
- skahn
March 15, 2012 at 1:44am
While the Islamists wage war, violence, destruction; Israel wages technology, progress . Israel technology. Israel business. Cisco set to buy NDS for $5B Company founded by Weizmann Institute scientists, operates large R&D center in Jerusalem Golan Hazani, Calcalist Published: 03.15.12, 07:39 / Israel Business Former Israeli company NDS, which operates a large R&D center in Jerusalem, is in advanced acquisition talks with information technology giant Cisco, Calcalist reported Thursday. The company, which develops software solutions for multi-channel television networks and is owned by the Premira fund and News Corp, is expected to finalize the sale within days in a mega-deal estimated at $5 billion. Big Business Israel's Super-Dimension to be acquired for $350M / Snir Handler, Calcalist Medical equipment company sold to American giant Covidien; says market US market it is targeting presents potential of 8 million patients Full story NDS was founded in 1988 in Jerusalem by a group of scientists from the Weizmann Institute of Science. The company specializes in the development of interactive systems for secure delivery of entertainment and information to digital TVs, digital set-top boxes, PCs and mobile devices. NDS also provides electronic security solutions for web applications. Talks between Cisco and Premira, which owns 51% of NDS, and the News Corp group, which is controlled by Rupert Murdoch and owns 49% of the company, are in their final stages. The deal’s estimated value is about 35% higher than NDS’s value when it was delisted from the stock exchange in 2009. Magnet for foreign investors The company’s flagship product is its encryption and conditional access system, VideoGuard, which is installed on home TVs via smartcards integrated into set-top boxes. NDS’s solutions have been a magnet for foreign investors from its inception. In 1992, four years after it was founded, the company had its first moment of glory when it was acquired by News Corp for $15 million. In 1999, NDS achieved another milestone when Murdoch listed the company on NASDAQ. Ten years later, the picture changed once again for the former Israeli company when the European Premira partnered with New Corp and the two acquired all of NDS’s outstanding shares for $3.7 billion. Following the move, NDS was delisted from NASDAQ. In recent months, NDS’s owners made headlines for very different reasons. News Corp found itself in the epicenter of a phone hacking scandal, which resulted in the shutting down of the News of the World tabloid. Murdoch himself, who has become the target of worldwide criticism, was forced to testify before a British parliamentary committee. Premira made headlines in Israel under completely different circumstance, namely a series of acquisitions and negotiations involving several Israeli companies. Recently, the private equity fund acquired a controlling interest in irrigation solutions company Netafim for $850 million. NDS itself had recently made headlines in Israel following media reports that the company submitted its initial public offering prospectus to NYSE in the aim of raising $100 million. According to reports, the offering will be led by Morgan Stanley, J. P. Morgan and Goldman Sach,s which are believed to be underwriting the present acquisition deal as well, with J.P. Morgan as lead underwriter. Follow Ynetnews on Facebook and Twitter
- JAIMECHUCH
March 15, 2012 at 2:13am
Let the people in the Middle East take care of their own problems. For thousands of years they've been sleepwalking with their thumbs up their butts. They were unconscious while countless bloody dictators took over their lives. And now, after the "revolutions" of the "Arab Spring," they're going prone once more, so somebody can again step on their necks. They never seem to learn. I feel bad about the suffering in Syria, but the people there have had a couple of millenniums to get themselves out of this mess. And now the only way they can think of to do it is to call for Mommy and Daddy America to bring their big guns? Beyond sad. I agree about Maddow. I don't like her smug personality on her show. But when she's on a panel on another show, like Meet the Press, she's usually the smartest person there. Maybe she shouldn't have her own show--or her own book. I hope you're staying, too, Mr. Wieseltier.
- magboy47.
March 15, 2012 at 2:22am
International organizations. Failure to be fair and honest. Ynetnews > Opinion Ron Ben-Yishai ▪ Nahum Barnea ▪ Sever Plocker Human Rights? Ilustration Photo: Shutterstock A Dutch lesson for Israel Op-ed: As Dutch euthanasia uproar shows, UN human rights body only cares about Israel Manfred Gerstenfeld Published: 03.15.12, 00:18 / Israel Opinion American presidential hopeful Rick Santorum recently stated that 10% of those who die in the Netherlands are killed by euthanasia. He added that half of these cases were involuntary. Over a few years, this would make the Dutch medical profession a far bigger murderer of civilians than Syrian President Bashar Assad. There were many loud protests from the Netherlands stating that Santorum’s claims were false, as euthanasia is applied on 2.5% of all dying people per year. A contributor to Forbes, however, pointed out that when applying certain calculations, Santorum’s claims may not have been so far off. Jewish Discussion In praise of euthanasia / Ynetnews Rabbi, prominent Israeli doctors discuss euthanasia at northern Israel convention Full story Let us now employ a bit of fantasy and assume that Muslim states were intent on assailing the Netherlands. They would then claim in the United Nations Human Rights Council that such killings are a severe breach of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These states could easily muster a majority to have the UNHRC appoint a commission of inquiry into this matter. This all the more so, as many other states need Muslim votes on issues of interest to them. Who would be better qualified to head such a committee than the Grand Master of Flawed UNHRC Reporting, Judge Richard Goldstone? As his report on Israel was a classic exercise in distorted methodology, its model should be followed. His committee of inquiry would include one member who had already condemned the Netherlands on euthanasia and another who was hostile to the country. Goldstone and his associates would set out with their proven procedural methods. The commission would reach its conclusion on the basis of what it “saw, heard and read.” The commission had accepted hearsay in the Gaza war investigation. It would thus do the same in the Dutch situation. As there are many medical doctors in the Netherlands who consider euthanasia immoral, some of them would likely testify and present the facts they have about its abuse. Netherlands needn’t worry Some individuals would appear before the Goldstone commission relaying that family members had asked to apply involuntary euthanasia on a patient in order to lay their hands on his inheritance. As hearsay is accepted as evidence, I could also appear before the commission. I have a Dutch acquaintance who told me how hospital doctors exercised extreme pressure on her to authorize euthanasia on her mortally ill husband. As dozens of babies born with an open back have been killed by Dutch doctors in recent years, there would likely be other doctors who would testify to the Goldstone commission that children born with an open back have been unjustifiably characterized in Dutch society as “misfits.” Others who might appear before the commission would be from Helping Hands, a Christian organization for the handicapped. They wrote in the past to the Deputy Minister of Health requesting better protection for the handicapped. Due to the commission inquiry, the international public argument on euthanasia would be widened. There would be articles stating that there have been quite a few doctors in history who were also mass-murderers. They would then refer to Josef Mengele of Auschwitz infamy. This theme of doctors who murder could be extended to the late Haitian dictator Papa Doc François Duvalier and to Bashar Assad, as well as many other lesser known ones. If Goldstone were consistent, the report would be damning. After some time had passed and major damage to The Netherlands was done, he would write an article recanting part of his report, just as he did concerning Israel. All of this of course, is pure fantasy. Deeply flawed UNHRC reports only focus on the one country which it condemns consistently – Israel. All other countries, including the Netherlands, needn’t worry. Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld has published 20 books. He is Chairman of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs Follow Ynetnews on Facebook and Twitter
- JAIMECHUCH
March 15, 2012 at 2:25am
I think it's basically unwise for one media pundit to use the term "self-adoring" when talking about the public persona of another media pundit, except in cases where the self-adoration phenomenon is pretty well established and has broad assent. Fwiw, Rachel Maddow strikes me as a fairly intelligent and self-aware individual, for a TV personality, and not at all self-adoring.
- ironyroad
March 15, 2012 at 3:26am
No, American military power is not absurd--though I'll have to take your word for it that Maddow's thesis is that it is absurd--but you and your fellow armchair hawks have an embarrassingly awful track record at recognizing what American military power is capable of accomplishing and what it isn't. Can American power prevent foreign invaders from taking countries over? Yes. The US accomplished this goal in both Kosovo and Kuwait. Can American and American-proxy guns and bombs topple foreign leaders that we find reprehensible? Surely they can, and surely Obama knows that they can. He has seen to it that they did just that in Libya. Can American and American-proxy guns and bombs ensure that the regimes they topple are replaced by less reprehensible governments or by any government at all? No, they can't. In fact, American power has consistently failed to accomplish these goals. Germany and Japan are perennially trotted out as shining counterexamples, but unless you plan to reduce Damascus to a flaming pile of rubble, to drop a couple of A-bombs on Syria and get the Russians to occupy the northern third of the country and rape every woman they can lay hands on, and then plan an twenty-to-thirty year American administration in Syria, Germany and Japan are useless as examples of how we might helpfully intervene there. I don't know about Maddow, but I'm confident that Obama has a much sounder idea about how to employ American military force in the USA's best interest than does Leon Weiseltier.
- AaronW
March 15, 2012 at 3:59am
The headline on the front page of the site read "Has military force gone out of fashion?" It made me consider other things that have gone out of fashion: Growing old Acting with honor and honesty in everyday dealings 501 blue jeans (daddy jeans) in favor of jeans that will wear out much more quickly Rock'n'roll Rockefeller Republicans Homeownership California Drugs Television Investigative journalism Social misanthropes (fashionable during the Gen X heyday) Gen X Baby Boomers (they destroyed the country with selfishness, now they want social security? Fuck them)
- fwslusser2
March 15, 2012 at 4:05am
On March 1, the UK's Guardian published a piece on a new innovation in Dutch medicine, mobile euthanasia units... sort of a new, "enlightened", and doubtlessly "progressive" variation on the classical, but vanishing doctor's house call. See here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/01/dutch-mobile-euthanasia-units I am sure it is not fashionable to say this, least of all at TNR, but Santorum (whom I do NOT support) may not have been that far off. But hey, why ruin a good narrative with some ugly facts? Hershel Ginsburg Jerusalem / Efrata
- ginzy
March 15, 2012 at 7:42am
Sometimes I am oh so slow. Clearly, we haven't bombed anyone lately, because it is becoming unfashionable it seems. Well, we had best take care of that before the old-fashioned virtue of bombing early and often is forgotten altogether. And here we see the fundamental reason why: They permit physician-assisted suicide in the Netherlands for the terminally ill and suffering. That's got to stop! So, let's bomb someone in Syria today. That will show the Dutch a thing or two. Should wake them right up to their moral depravity. I am always so impressed by what I can learn by reading here.
- roidubouloi
March 15, 2012 at 8:02am
Of course, no one should mistake our bombing a third country to save it from itself, making ourselves the moral arbiters of who there should live and who should die, with the Dutch allowing the terminally ill to decide that they themselves no longer want to live in suffering. The important thing is that death should be visited from above by unseen bombers -- like angels -- and not something that you have anything to say about. If Santorum can get elected president, we should finally get that right. It's all about respect for life, you see. We need to pay close attention to the most conservative teachings of the Catholic church, and to religious zealots in the Holy Land, especially to messianic Israeli settlers, who have maintained their respect for these values while the rest of us have gotten carried away by the unfashionable desire not to be the ones pulling the trigger. We have forgotten god. I believe that, despite this momentary secular fashion, the old-fashioned religious virtues of war-making, colonialism, making war to enforce colonialism, and such, will never be suppressed entirely. Though beaten down by "the Dutch," they will emerge again, perhaps by Tuesday.
- roidubouloi
March 15, 2012 at 8:11am
Rachel Maddow? I will repeat the best advice Steve Schmidt gave to Senator McCain: don't watch MSNBC. As for Mr. Jefferson, it's true that he didn't want to annex Canada, the conventional wisdow of the 18th century version of today's neocons; but he was the first president to send Americans to fight in a foreign war, a war against Barbary (Muslim) pirates, an action that so impressed Hitchens he wrote a biog (it's too short to call a biography) of Jefferson so he could go around the country on a book tour expressing his dislike of Muslims, just like Mr. Jefferson. Not to leave out an important detail, Mr. Jefferson had a navy at his disposal to launch against the Muslims only because President Adams refused to accede to Jefferson's hectoring to disarm. If we are fortunate, Obama will not accede to the neocons hectoring to ignite another war in the middle east, this one a regional war (to end all wars, I suppose).
- rayward
March 15, 2012 at 8:15am
what Attrill said. Lord knows I was the most vociferous supporter of action in Libya and joined Leon in railing against Obama for what I (we) perceived as his dithering up to the point of action, of course as we all know he was simply getting his ducks lined up (UN approval, Arab league approval, etc.) Syria is far too different, far more populated, far too many factions. And Israel can certainly arm the opposition via backchannels a hell of a lot easier than we can, as can Turkey, and do not give me bs that the Syrian opposition would rather die than accept Israeli help. If Israel is not actively supporting the opposition, maybe they have good reasons not to, reasons similar to the US.
- blackton
March 15, 2012 at 8:27am
"Has military force gone out of fashion?" Please dear God let it be so.
- Tristan
March 15, 2012 at 8:28am
Unbelievable. Mr. Wieseltier would love nothing more than other peoples' kids getting killed in more wars based on lies. It is time for America to worry about America's interests first. We have become the most hated nation in the world because of these constant wars based on lies and constant threatening of wars. Iran is of no threat to us. We have no business in fighting yet another war based on lies in the Middle East
- MSA70
March 15, 2012 at 8:33am
I'm assuming that Wieseltier didn't pen article headline (... out of fashion) but it would appear to confirm one of the regular criticisms of him that can be found in the comments here. Which is that he has a rather cavalier attitude toward the use of force. As for a "disinclination" to use force - what? Was Leon penning something for a UK or French paper and suddenly found himself still publishing for TNR? It's worth noting that we are literally only a few days shy of the first anniversary of the most recent bombing of Libya, and effort which IIRC was completely dependent on US who provided about 50% of the aircraft in the skies, a naval fleet, drones and on-the-ground intelligence for bombing targets. And the US does go through these odd periods that can get close to a decade where it's not actively involved in a shooting war under Democrats and Republicans, but we actually still have one of those going on. It is perhaps most ironic that the author quotes the president saying something very reasonable about why he's not keen to jump into Syria but then utterly fails to make a persuasive argument about why this is wrong. We might be able to remove a dictator quite quickly, but if my memory isn't failing me we did just that in 2003 and left that country... 9 years later! Perhaps there's a little more to it that toppling the odd dictator? Curiously a consideration of "what next" is completely missing here and is just dismissed as "the usual excuses... about the oppositions disunity". And then of course there's the problem that the use of military force tends to have all sorts of unintended consequences. Such as, demonstrating quite clearly in recent years that if you want the Americans to leave to you alone, get nukes (see Iran). Or, the Americans actually quite like and support violent uprisings, that is unless you are the Palestinians. Can't imagine the lessons they're drawing from Libya. And on the topic of Libya, giving up a nuclear program doesn't exactly seem to encourage the Americans to leave you alone (see Iran again). Leon seems rather worried about Iran, but rather oblivious to how his preferred course of action would impact that situation. So while the situation in Syria is absolutely tragic, it can only be described as churlish to ascribe the lack of US military response to the specious points made here.
- Nari224
March 15, 2012 at 8:35am
You know, I should have made the theological point, but forgot. Even under the best of circumstances, air war remains kind of random. You never really know who is going to get killed. That's a good thing. It means that god is the one ultimately deciding upon whom death shall be visited. We, dropping the bomb, are only his agent; we have not taken upon ourselves the awesome decision about who shall live and who shall die. On the other hand, with abortion or physician-assisted suicide, we, mere human beings, are deciding the particular being whose life shall end. This is hubris, trying to set man above god, usurping his rightful place. If one but pays attention to the timeless religious virtues, and the virtues of the religious, the way is clear.
- roidubouloi
March 15, 2012 at 8:37am
Oh, and why Syria, why now? Why not Zimbabwe five years ago? Dictatorial government? Check. Organized opposition? Check. Murderous violence directed at own populace? Check. (Mugabe has killed many thousands more of his own people than Assad and continues to do so through direct means and through his vandalistic destruction of Zim's entire economy and medical system.) Regional refugee crisis? Check. Easy target militarily? Check, check, check. Low risk of increasing regional instability or terrorist blowback? Check. Unless and until TNR editors start agitating for a US invasion of Zimbabwe, the should shut the fuck up about Syria.
- AaronW
March 15, 2012 at 8:44am
Are there no Moslems in Zimbabwe? Surely there must be some?
- roidubouloi
March 15, 2012 at 8:48am
This points out the possibility of a very successful strategy for the Zimbabwe opposition, if there is any. They should smuggle Moslems into the country. (Preferably al Qaeda, but that is not actually necessary. It does, however, reduce the number of Moslems you need for the "critical mass" by a factor of a 100,000 or so.) Once the population of Moslems is high enough, Zimbabe will become a candidate for regime change and liberation by force of American arms
- roidubouloi
March 15, 2012 at 8:51am
aaron, sorry buddy, but I am actually supportive of action in Zimbabwe (not as much now since Mugabe has one and a half feet in the grave). Be careful if you start making these equivalences because your unintended consequence will be for someone like me to say, hey you are right, lets intervene in Zimbabwe.
- blackton
March 15, 2012 at 8:56am
Last night I asked for someone to tell me something new about humans and violence and what to do about it. I have carefully read all the succeeding comments. It is Spring where we live with chickens in the woods. Wild rabbits are roaming and trying to get into our garden despite the fence and electricified wire. Perhaps I will kill a sweet little bunny today with my pellet rifle, because I am a human being, and I can. Perhaps that is what God wants me to do. If my foggy old eyes can see straight, and my shaky old arms can hold the firearm steady enough, and if I do not keel over from the excitement of killing something at the age of 68, and if the vegan police to not arrest me for being a Jewish omnivore.
- skahn
March 15, 2012 at 9:15am
electrified. I am 68 years old and dyslexic, and perhaps demented. The bunnies clearly need to be bombed from the air to save them from me.
- skahn
March 15, 2012 at 9:17am
"As for Iran: there is indeed too much talk of war, and also too much talk of Auschwitz." Leon Wieseltier after all turned out to be a defender of Iran! Achmedinajad has spoken many times of his aim to destroy Israel while building his cherished nuclear bombs. He also declared that Israel is a "one bomb" state. Iran if not prevented to continue building it's nuclear bombs could indeed make Auschwitz pale in comparison with the immolation of Israel with one nuclear bomb. Leon! You make me sick!
- Poupic
March 15, 2012 at 9:33am
Did Leon Wieseltier just accuse someone else of being self adoring? When did TNR become a humorist magazine? Don't get me wrong -- I approve whole-heartedly. I look forward to more hilarious editorials about how the U.S. must attack some country in the Middle East because the author cares so much about the lives of Arabs and Muslims and not because he's looking out for the interests of some other country in the Middle East.
- DC Spence
March 15, 2012 at 9:49am
Blackton, that's fine. I'd be much happier for us to intervene in Zim than Syria. I worked in Namiba for a time and became friendly with several refugees from Mugabe's regime. I and my wife tried unsuccessfully to sponsor one family of our acquaintance for humanitarian migration to Australa. Louis, the man of the family, had been arrested and beaten on the soles of his feet for interceding when Mugabe's thugs were beating a pregnant woman. On another occasion he was taken from his house and held for three days because he led a home-owners' association that filed a law suit against the government when the govt effectively nationalized their houses. Louis and the other Zimbabweans I knew were all Shona, Mugabe's tribe. Even they were ready to admit that Mugabe was beyond the pale and must go. They acknowledged that during the 80s Mugabe had overseen the murder of tens of thousands of minority N'debele, and even that at present with the food shortages affecting the entire country, N'debeleland i the country's south was probably being willfully starved on the part of he government. Shona would speak freely to me of their disgust with Mugabe but told me that they would never say anything of the kind around other Zimabweans. They believed that Mugabe's spies were everywhere and that even in Namibia (One of the main streets in Windhoek is Robert Mugabe Drive) were they to speek out their family members at home in Zim would be targeted for disappearance. 2000 US Marines could subdue Zimbabwe in less than a week. The number of Zimbabweans who actively support RM is tiny. The Shona I knew were all I intelligent, well educated and peacefully minded and would welcome the return of white farmers if it meant a reassurance of the Zimbabwean agricultural economy--pre-1999, Zim was the "breadbasket of Africa". The chances of a prolonged insurgency after such an intervention a la Iraq would be next to none. The chances of a democratic government emerging would be excellent--democracy existed in Zim up until the 2000s. My real point here is that for authors here at TNR to harp on Syria while ignoring places like Zimbabwe reveals a certain bias. That's all.
- AaronW
March 15, 2012 at 10:30am
Just beginning to resd this piece: so far, so good: as concerning Maddow, ...Written in the same perky self-adoring voice that makes her show so excruciating...
- basman
March 15, 2012 at 10:36am
By the way, what the hell is a self-adoring voice anyway? I can imagine a self-adoring tone of various kinds, but a voice is just voice. Some are loud, some are soft, some high, some deep. Unless LW is using "voice" in two separate meanings without distinguishing them, one the speaking voice an individual has in real life, and two, "voice" as a kind of assumed authorial stance in a literary text.
- ironyroad
March 15, 2012 at 11:48am
For a fuller, more intellectually honest, not-flippant discussion of Israel’s Iran conundrum than I've seen in most of the MSM, see Ari Shavit in today's Ha’aretz, here: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/an-iran-attack-is-the-toughest-question-israel-faced-since-1948-1.418747 hg
- ginzy
March 15, 2012 at 12:11pm
Certainly, if there is any good reason to roam the world intervening in armed conflicts, it is Rachel Maddow's voice, literal or figurative. I think the premise of this piece is indicative of the thought that went into it.
- roidubouloi
March 15, 2012 at 12:19pm
The haaretz piece on the conundrum of Iran is indeed a very serious discussion, or at least agenda, that raises all of the profound questions that must be faced. It is noteworthy also for the stark contrast with almost all of the bombast that has been thrown at the issue. The questions raised are not such as can or should be answered without deliberation. But they raise others. The author laments the lack of strategic cooperation between Israel and the US and the lack of trust between Netanyahu and Obama. For months, if not years already, I have been noting, flippantly, that the Israeli response to what is supposedly an existential crisis has been "to build a few apartments in Jerusalem." Then I have questioned whether such behavior indicates that the crisis is not at all as serious in the minds of Israeli military intelligence as it is made out to be. Leaving aside the technical aspects of time and means (it is indeed only a matter of time until Iran has the means), the haaretz piece makes clear how profound these issues are. In that light, how can the behavior of Netanyahu toward the United States, its diplomacy, and its most senior public officials be reconciled with the seriousness and complexity of the threat? The author also laments that Israel is, or feels, alone. I don't think this is quite true, and not because of warm regard for Israel. The United States, certainly Obama, does understand very well the strategic implications, including a nuclear arms race, of an Iranian bomb, even if it is not itself immediately threatened by Iranian missiles. All of the vituperation emerging from the Israeli right about appeasement and Obama's supposed fecklessness have not brought any understanding of anything and surely must be an irritant to the relationship. Unfortunately, haaretz also repeats this canard. Obama inherited from the moron Bush a terrible situation, indeed many terrible situations. Among these is that Bush, in his characteristic manner, had talked tough about Iran while doing nothing. There is little worse in international relations than tough but empty talk. I don't think this was appeasement. It was stupidity of colossal proportions, born of the neocon fixation with belligerent speech. These idiots keep imagining that we all do live in a Dirty Harry move, "Go ahead, make my day," in which enemies, faced with verbal threats, fall down in limp submission from sheer terror. That any nation, let alone the United States, should conduct its policy based on such childish delusions is beyond appalling; given the stakes, it is terrifying. Recognizing that international cooperation offers the only sure means of removing the threat, and that those relations were badly fractured by the cowboy-go-it-alone behavior and belligerent rhetoric of the Bush administration, Obama understood that he needed first to knit back some semblance of international unity in order to move forward. It has not been easy to say the least, but there has been progress, both in the level of cooperation and in the tightening of sanctions. An important contribution to the "reset" was Obama's speech in Cairo. Its purpose was clear, to show an open hand, a level head, and an attitude of respect toward the Moslem world. It was not addressed to Israel, although Obama did take the opportunity to make clear that he was not appeasing the Moslem world by pretending Israel does not exist. Instead of understanding this as a step toward creating the consensus necessary to deal with the Iranian threat, all the Israeli right and their neocon brethren could do was lament that Obama had not given them the account of Jewish history that they wanted to hear. What can one say? Here is a nation faced with a very real, profound, strategic threat, dependent on the goodwill and cooperation of the United States, and yet seemingly utterly devoid of any sort of strategic thinking or awareness whatsoever. Faced with nuclear threat and a fractured international community suspicious of the US, the big concern is whether Obama has the emphases correct when he refers to Jewish history. This is a kind of insanity, and a kind of moral and strategic passivity that I find unfathomable. It is if Israel is utterly without hope and therefore most wants to here some soothing words as it goes down in flames. Insofar as the haaretz author laments Israel's isolation, both actual and experiential, it is also necessary, essential, to discuss the settlements. No, it is not the case that if Israel were only to give up its settlements the Palestinians, the larger Arab world, and the still larger Moslem world would suddenly light up in smiles and embrace Israel. But Israel, with its settlement policy, has not only created a constant provocation, it has made itself a rogue state, openly defying the Fourth Geneva Convention and a multitude of UNSC resolutions. What the Israeli right, the settler and religious zealots, and the neocons cannot seem to understand is that this undermines the entire western, post-WWII project of international law, particularly as embodied in the UN. It is not relevant, particularly, whether the settlements are the reason why there is no peace. What is relevant is that the west, and the United States in particular, is placed by Israel in a position of flagrant hypocrisy as regards the regime of international law. Of course there are worse actors than Israel in the world, but they are outlaws, and they are not OUR actors. As well, we must in many cases bend to strategic necessity an not pursuing international malefactors. The system of international law is as yet very immature, very far from complete. But it is not useless. It is, for example, the entire basis upon which we invoke the cooperation of other nations and the necessity of Iran suspending its pursuit of nuclear arms. Israel and its settlements, its flagrant violations that go unanswered by the west, create the appearance, with considerable justification, that the UN, international law, are merely another form of colonialism, a means by which the developed west seeks to control the rest of the world and its resources, because, when one of us is a flagrant violator of international law, it meets with no response from us, from the western community. The US has neither the resources nor the will to police the whole world. That is why it created the UN, so that it would not have to, so that cooperation with others, and the force of law could relieve a substantial part of the burden and make the task manageable. I have often noted, and occasionally commented, that many who defend Israel's supposed right to keep on doing what it is doing until the Palestinians have their come to Yahweh moment do not understand what law is. It is first and foremost a system of consensus. The members of a society must broadly accept the legitimacy of law and that they are obliged to observe it, not because of the promise of punishment, but because it is just and fair. To be sure, a great deal of this is an illusion, but if the illusion cannot be sustained, if people cease generally to believe in the legitimacy of the regime of law, it crumbles. The resources of law enforcement can never come close to being adequate for widespread lawbreaking. The result is chaos and lawlessness. This is why, with all of its flaws and holes and inadequacies, we have to continue to try to uphold the regime of international law, just as we do the regime of domestic law despite its many inconsistencies and injustices. The alternative is more than we can hope to manage. Israel undermines the regime of international law and the illusion, if you will, that the west believes in international law and that it is a system that protects all nations and peoples, that it is not merely a tool of western hegemony. The only conceivable response of the western community is for Israel to become isolated and progressively more isolated. The neocons don't care. They want to undermine the system of international law and to destroy the UN because they imagine, that these serve only to bind American power. Without them, they think, we would be able to manage the world. That the opposite of the case never dawns on them, because they are besotted with the idea of military power. In their minds, the fact that we have the most means we win. That our means may not be adequate, standing alone, to our ends simply never occurs to them. Obama offered Netanyahu the opportunity to rejoin the western community on the cheap, not by actually dismantling the settlements, but by freezing construction there, without any of the Israeli subterfuges that have repeatedly bedeviled the situation. Netanyahu, whose stupidity in my mind easily rivals that of Bush, couldn't take the opportunity to say, "While we do not concede any of our claims on the right of Jews to live anywhere in Israel, we, like Ben-Gurion before us, must accept that we are not alone in the world. It is essential that we do whatever we can to support American efforts to bring peace to Israel and all of the peoples of the Middle East. We must do our part to that end. Despite the hardship, we therefore accept without reservation the US request and hope that it will quickly lead to final settlement negotiations and the peace and security we have longed for since the founding of the State of Israel." Israel is headed over a cliff, even without the Iranian threat. But, given the nature and urgency of the looming Iranian threat, how can Netanyahu have failed to take the exit ramp offered him, the opportunity, in effect, to blame the Americans for the necessity of ceasing to do what Israel never should have done in the first place? I don't know. Netanyahu seems completely unable to understand Israel's strategic situation and Israeli society seems completely unable to find its Churchill to replace this Chamberlain.
- roidubouloi
March 15, 2012 at 1:16pm
I've now read this piece and felt it declined precipitously after the noting of Maddow's hard to take perkiness. Maybe it's me but I found it riven by conceptual unclarity. Essentially, I found Wieseltier confusing two different notions: his canard that the issue is that military force is never to be considered--...there is nothing Strangelovian about the discussion of force. A military strike may be a bad idea—the results may be insufficient, the costs may be too high; but the contemplation of it is not war fever...--and the different question of whether force in particular instances, say Iran or Syria. And with the former he's quite adept at his demolition of a gigantic straw man.
- basman
March 15, 2012 at 1:18pm
If only Rachel Maddow had a self-hating voice, right? Name another television journalist who is as factually accurate and not shrilly partisan. Leon W. is the most prolix, vain, arrogant, war-mongering writer on the left. It would be forgivable if he were sometimes endearing, like Martin Peretz.
- Sancho
March 15, 2012 at 1:54pm
No point, sancho. Maddow is Catholic, hence ineligible to be referred to as a self-hating Jew. She can be an anti-Semite and no doubt would be if she dares to comment critically about Israel or AIPAC.
- roidubouloi
March 15, 2012 at 2:15pm
A more suitable gloss (rather than Jefferson's) would be, I think it was somewhere in Machiavelli, that those who would act the way things ought to be rather than the way things are would sooner effect their end rather than their preservation. Enough of wars that are not in our interests.
- warman
March 15, 2012 at 2:26pm
"The other day, in one of his only-adult-in-the-room moments, Obama asserted that 'we have not launched a war' against Iran’s nuclear installations because 'this is not a game. There’s nothing casual about it.' Who says it’s a game? Obama is still running against Bush and Cheney, to whom Maddow owes a similar debt." That's LW's argument? It's odd having to explain, but the thing is that those who are pushing for military action are NOT saying it's a game, while in fact they are acting irresponsibly AS IF it were a game. Which is exactly what the president is pointing out. It's not difficult.
- ironyroad
March 15, 2012 at 2:34pm
Ironyroad, I disagree with your about Rachel Maddow. But as my cousin Herbie always says, "I will defend to my death, your right to be wrong."
- basman
March 15, 2012 at 3:26pm
basman -- you mean when I said that she seems fairly intelligent and self-aware, for a TV personality? Or something else? http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-may-3-2011/rachel-maddow Maybe I'm biased but if I was trying to think of someone to fit the label "fairly stupid and unaware individual," she's not what would first come to mind.
- ironyroad
March 15, 2012 at 3:47pm
basman, "Smug" is still the only word I can think of to describe Maddow on her show. She gets all this inside info and then "sticks it to" her target and lets you know she's doing it (kinda like Limbaugh, although much of his info is made up). But, like I said, Rachel's okay when she's not on her own show. P.S.: My inside sources in Morgantown tell me that it's in the mid-to-upper 70's there and will remain that way at least into next week. Things may be bloomin' by the time you get there on April 24th. We have the Pineapple Express out here in Seattle at the moment--12 straight hours of cloudbursting deluges at a time. Love it. I've become a duck since I moved to this city, and I'm about to quack up.
- magboy47.
March 15, 2012 at 4:02pm
No, along the lines of what my man Magboy said. "Smug," puts it well, and so does Wieseltier in the only high point of his piece when he says, ...Written in the same perky self-adoring voice that makes her show so excruciating... I might dissent some from "self adoring" and try to capture more the element of smugness. So I might have said, " same perky, self satisfied (or substitute "smug") voice that makes her show so excruciating... "Fairly intelligent and self aware" she for sure is, and more than "fairly" at that. But it's that damn self satisfaction that makes it impossible for me to watch her. Olbermann has that quality in spades sans the perkiness, more like lugubrious smugness. And I'm afraid Melissa Harris Perry has it too but not as bad and so so far I can watch her. Interestingly Chris Hayes is as smart as any of the three of them but without sanctimony or self satisfied self assurance. He's really a doll of a person, in the best sense of "doll" as in a real sweet, nice guy, who's eminently watchable and for my money the best of all the MSNBCers, including Olbermann who's long gone. Magboy thanks for the update on Mrgantown. Can't wait to hit the road and get there. It's not at all a bad drive from Toronto it seems-- 6/7 hours or so. I love the road trips so I can do that without blinking. Fwiiw, my brother in law lives in Seattle. Great town as is the Pacific North West. It all feels like home to me up there for all my years in Vancouver and all my perambulating up and down the West Coast.
- basman
March 15, 2012 at 4:27pm
I think that smug tone is more of a stylistic tic on her part, rather like Charlie Rose being unable to interview Helen Mirren without talking about nudity.
- ironyroad
March 15, 2012 at 4:38pm
I'm not sure what you mean by a stylistic tic. If Charlie Rose asks Helen Mirren about nudity, which he might or might not ask, that's a choice and he can discipline himself otherwise. He's really a better interviewer now than he used to be, btfw. There is something inner about Maddow's intellectual self satisfaction that seems to me more than a stylistic tic. It doesn't wear it well and it always come out in her, is what I get.
- basman
March 15, 2012 at 5:03pm
You think people only do what they determine they will do on rational disciplined grounds? It might be so at times but honestly -- if I can serve as an example of the human condition -- I know that at moments I do and say things that I seem impelled to do rather than being completely in control. Maybe "that I seem to have been impelled to do" captures the thing better. But let's leave last Saturday night out of it -- I've apologized, but I'm not going to crawl. I think CR imagines himself to be able to discuss nude scenes without being creepy, unlike most other interviewers. Could be true, actually.
- ironyroad
March 15, 2012 at 5:22pm
"MSA70 Unbelievable. Mr. Wieseltier would love nothing more than other peoples' kids getting killed in more wars based on lies." The daily nasty comment by MSA. He would love nothing more than letting governments massacre its citizens at will.
- arnon1
March 15, 2012 at 6:31pm
"TRASHING FORCE may win you a lot of friends, but it is stupid." This is one of Wieseltier's main themes and this thread proves him right.
- arnon1
March 15, 2012 at 6:36pm
basman, I'm with you on Olberman. I tried to watch him a couple times on his new network, and I couldn't make it beyond 15 minutes. "Lugubrious smugness" is a fitting term to describe his style. He is one gloomy guy, and he never questions his own views. I liked him better when he was on NBC sports events. Is he still on Sunday Night Football? He's followed weeknights on Current TV by the Canadian ex-governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm. Now there's a sweet one. Her program is called the War Room, but she's not into combat at all. She simply interviews people, including Republicans, with an interest in what they have to say. I get the feeling that she'll break out apple pie and cookies at any moment for her guests, if only she could deliver them through closed circuit TV. Of course, Republicans in Michigan think she's the Devil incarnate. A couple of my relatives in the state have strongly implied that. Such is politics.
- magboy47.
March 15, 2012 at 7:23pm
"Such is politics." Or maybe, such is politics in a society of insane people who pride themselves on their intelligence, acumen, and wisdom?
- ironyroad
March 15, 2012 at 8:36pm
Irony, not to beat a horse with no life, but I continue to see a telling difference between R.M.coming across as the person she is, or is perceived to be by me, and C.R. deciding what questions to ask in an interview. And I think that difference spans the fact that we are in our conduct who we are and don't act usually on precisely rationally, that acting informed deeply by who we are. There are so many intermediary steps between C.R., say, being who he is and and him developing a set of questions to ask an interviewee and R.M., say, being who she is on her show no matter what she does. Fwwiw, George Will, too, among, other things, in a different rythym and tone and sensibility has his own quotient of that same hard to take smug self satisfaction. Also as a postscript, I don't detect any of that quailty in Wieseltier or in fact in C.R. who I have seen interview him. I don't see it in Wiesleltier when I have seen him speak or in what I've read of him, including in pieces like this, which I think is inferior for him.
- basman
March 15, 2012 at 10:28pm
I don't know basman -- I've never watched Maddox's show but if you say she's smug . . . well, ok. She doesn't seem that way to me on the evidence of the Daily Show interview, but maybe she's different there.
- ironyroad
March 16, 2012 at 12:41am
God, you and so many other writers on the staff of TNR just love to beat the drums of war. What seems to be this fascination with war? Have you ever actually been in a war? Have you ever seen wounded soldiers and civilians? What really is going on in your mind? I just would like to really understand. It seems so bizarre. I just don't get it.
- rewiredhogdog
March 16, 2012 at 1:27am
rewiredhog like MSA 70, keeps posting the same message again and again. There are people who have been in war and who hate war and who reluctantly see the necessity of suing force to defend themselves. If you are unwilling to defend yourself, then you are depending on others to defend you. (having been to war doesn't automatically qualify you as an expert on all wars and certainly not on the the assessment of when and if the use of force is necessary. I am not endorsing, btw, a US attack on the Syrian regime at this time. And yes, rewired, you "don't get it."
- arnon1
March 16, 2012 at 12:51pm
And what, exactly, in his oeuvre makes you think Wieseltier is qualified to make "the assessment of when and if the use of force is necessary?" Oh, he's read the Iliad, von Clausewitz, dare I say Sun Tzu? He has fought a thousand bloody battles on the field of his armchair. He described Maddow as "perky" and "self-adoring." I have no particular allegiance to her, but as already remarked above, Leon Wieseltier describing someone as self-adoring is the height of irony. However, perky certainly does not fit for him. More appropriate is the term "lugubriously smug" used above to describe Olbermann. Leon always claims that Reason should always guide our thoughts and decisions. Funny how the use of "Reason" always seems to lead to whatever decision best fits Leon's particular prejudices. Mirabile dictu, what a remarkable coincidence!
- bunthorne
March 16, 2012 at 2:42pm
I don't think Leon should worry so much. Now that we know war is either fashionable or not, we can be sure that if it is out of fashion for the moment it will come back into fashion soon.
- roidubouloi
March 16, 2012 at 3:35pm
I've tried watching Olberman also on his new network - last night actually - and found the show to be very lacking in substance, and way, way too many commercial breaks. As for this article - I guess for the United States to be involved non-stop in wars, hot and cold, since 19 fucking 41 isn't enough.
- dubyadoubte
March 16, 2012 at 3:51pm
Let me put it this way, dear bunthorne: I prefer Wieseltier's musings about reason even when I disagree with his conclusions than yourn when, once in a blue moon (made of cheese or rock), I agree with yourn.
- arnon1
March 16, 2012 at 4:21pm
Well, arnon, I honestly am pleased that you may sometimes agree with my musings, poor though they may be, blue moon or not.
- bunthorne
March 16, 2012 at 4:59pm
And might I add, regardless of what you may think of me and my musings, I frequently agree with yourn. I'm afraid that the relative worth of LW's musings is one topic on which we must diverge, however.
- bunthorne
March 16, 2012 at 5:02pm
Ww must, we must, bunthorne. One little question: did you add the "e" at the end of bunthorn like the Hawthornes, or was it always there like the Bunthorne of Gilbert and Sullivan?
- arnon1
March 16, 2012 at 5:45pm
I've only ever known the one from G&S.
- bunthorne
March 16, 2012 at 5:58pm
In that case this is for thee, "deep young man:" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjIrJUIwlL4&feature=related
- arnon1
March 16, 2012 at 6:37pm
Here is another version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VACEOFhmIyY&feature=related
- arnon1
March 16, 2012 at 6:39pm
Well, perhaps I am but an aesthetic sham.
- bunthorne
March 16, 2012 at 7:16pm
Now, now, bunthorne: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSGWoXDFM64
- arnon1
March 16, 2012 at 7:26pm
That was for Wieseltier...
- arnon1
March 16, 2012 at 7:26pm
The very model of a modern armchair general? Something tells me he doesn't read these comment threads. I'd love to be proven wrong.
- bunthorne
March 16, 2012 at 7:42pm
This must be Gingrich: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVI1bOVK4Sg&feature=related
- arnon1
March 16, 2012 at 7:43pm
70 comments, each more profound and self-involved than the previous. Is Leon Wieseltier the new Mary Peretz? Or is he merely a Regent?
- skahn
March 16, 2012 at 10:37pm
Not to depart from the tone and zeitgeist, and perhaps to stimulate the appropriate amount of venom and flaming, I will note that I much appreciated and enjoyed roidubouloi's comment about Zimbabwe.
- skahn
March 16, 2012 at 10:39pm
Wieseltier accused a media figure of being self-adoring. Skahn accused posters of being self-involved and for posting off-topic. I suppose we tend to attack in others what we dislike in ourselves. Please, deploy for us some of your deep, original insights on the behavior of human beings. Do we tend to kill each other a lot? You don't say!
- bunthorne
March 16, 2012 at 11:25pm
Two possible reasons not to act are: 1 we are planning or anticipating a strike on Iran and don't want to fight on two fronts at once and or; 2 we do not want to support an incipient Islamist insurgency which may be what is actually happening in Syria. Civilians are in the crossfire, for sure. But what do you do when both sides are your enemy? Morality has to take reality into account. How are we going to view Obama's support of the Arab Spring in Egypt when the Islamist take the reigns of power and nullify the peace treaty with Egypt?
- bfeingold7
March 16, 2012 at 11:37pm
Thank you bunthorne. You have a good point. Please expand. Please throw me into the bramble bushes while you are at it. There's quite a crowd in here.
- skahn
March 16, 2012 at 11:44pm
No, I have a feeling that there aren't too many still reading this thread any more. Obviously, neither of us have much better to do on a Friday evening.
- bunthorne
March 16, 2012 at 11:52pm
ignore skahn, bunthorne. Let him find his own briar patch. Couldn't even get that right. Here is the fable: " THE FIR TREE AND THE BRAMBLE BUSH" "The fir tree and the bramble bush were quarrelling with one another. The fir tree sang her own praises at length. 'I am beautiful and attractively tall. I grow straight up, a neighbour to the clouds. I supply the hall's roof and the ship's keel. How can you compare yourself, you mere thorn, to such a tree as myself?' The bramble bush then said to the tree, 'Just remember the axes which are always chopping away at you! Then even you can understand that it is better to be a bramble bush.'"
- arnon1
March 16, 2012 at 11:58pm
Now let him check out the Briar Patch fable.
- arnon1
March 17, 2012 at 12:00am
I think he's referring to the old b'rer rabbit story, wherein the rabbit begs not to be thrown into the briar patch, even though that's exactly what he wants. A classic, to be sure. Apparently, I've walked into a trap that he sprung. I don't know.
- bunthorne
March 17, 2012 at 12:10am
Yes, he intends to refer ton one fable but uses phrases from another fable.
- arnon1
March 17, 2012 at 12:37am
I don't know if we will make it to 100, either in terms of comments to this thread, or in terms of years.
- skahn
March 17, 2012 at 12:35pm
I am still waiting for the great change in TNR under its new management, so we can all complain how it was better in the old days. I presume there is a Yiddish terms (singular and plural) for pompous old fools. Anybody know what these terms would be? The HTML coding here is so primitive that not only is there no reliable way to turn italic off, there is no way to post a comment in green. Leopold Bloom would be disappointed.
- skahn
March 17, 2012 at 12:45pm
I haven't read Maddow's book yet, though I will. I enjoy her good-natured, cheerful espousal of liberal values and the realities behind the news. I don't find her to be "self-adoring" nor do I find her show "excruciating". Although I enjoy reading Mr Wieseltier, I imagine a tv program in this vein and estimate its audience at one-hundreth of a typical Maddow audience. In short, I value what she does and am quite happy that she succeeds at it. As for the argument here, I am not surprised that Maddow and others are thinking about whether our knee-jerk militarism is such a good thing. In my lifetime, we seem always to be sending troops somewhere, and often for a long time, only later to be unable to explain satisfactorily why. It is worth noting that even the wars we are inclined to view as awful mistakes take many years to bring to a close. It isn't stupid at all, Mr Wieseltier, to argue for a more rebust resistance to the war-making instincts of people like you and the editors of TNR who supported the war in Iraq, and who are really so clearly ticked that we are not jumping into Syria and Iran with both booted feet. I really wonder how we hope to maintain a volunteer military and also sustain the kind of military adventurism advocated in these pages. Or is there lurking not so far beneath all of this a call for a draft? And, necessarily, an increase in the defense budget? I expect Iran will get the bomb, and I expect we will not go to war to stop it from happening. We have had Iraq and Afghanistan, and our appetite for war has been burned out. Maddow's arguments may not matter at all, or as little as Wieseltier's. We are done for a while, until we forget. Neil
- purcellneil@aol.com
March 26, 2012 at 11:56am