The Art of Losing
Labels: Elizabeth Bishop, Joe Torre, poetry, Yankees
Labels: Elizabeth Bishop, Joe Torre, poetry, Yankees
Labels: 2000 election, climate crisis, Gore, humor
We chose, in this millennium's first test,
Between two lesser heirs, who at their best,
If they'd been born as sons of other pops,
Might hope to be elected sheriff, tops.
(At school, Bush was a dunce, there's no denying.
Young Gore did not stand out--and he was trying.
A frat-house honcho, Bush reprised that part;
Young Gore portrayed a piece of chain-saw art.
Labels: 2000 election, Bob Somerby, Gore, Iraq war, our long national nightmare, verse
Last Monday, in terse legalese, the court denied Mr. Williams’s now posthumous request that it consider his case. “The petition,” the docket entry said, “is dismissed as moot.” Moot, in other words, because the petitioner is dead.Dead because he was executed before his case could be heard.
Labels: conservatism, injustice, law
Profesor DeLong, what about Goldberg's argument makes you so emotional that you feel obliged to censor a plain summation of it from someone who (in a censored section above) expressed a lack of interest in the question of W/M's motives? If you're right, then make your case - it shouldn't be hard if the opposing side is obviously wrong. To carry a point you refuse to even begin to argue by censoring any discussion of it is, it seems to me, intellectual cowardice.
Goldberg is probably fairly described by US standards as a centrist on I/P questions, having written a book sympathetic to but critical of both sides. In the essay in question he calls for a fair, well-sourced, reasonable book criticizing AIPAC.
"But in practice they cannot be debated because people who supported them would tend to be labeled antisemitic and their arguments discounted on that basis."
Would you discount an argument on that basis? Would you discount any argument saying something is anti-Semitic because it says that?
The Goldberg argument is basically: the text is fundamentally flawed in logic and evidence and approach, and blames a small set of (in large part) rich or prominent Jews for manipulating the US into a war and causing OBL to attack us, and uses arguments based on e.g. the fact that Howard Dean's wife and kids are Jewish - hence as a fraudulent work unfairly attacking the influence and works of Jews and making arguments based on the identity of Jews, it is anti-Semitic.
In fact it seems to me that some (not the above) of the criticism of those saying the text is anti-Semitic is made to silence any push-back at all.
Anyway I don't find the question of whether the text is or isn't anti-Semitic of much interest compared to the question of whether the thesis is of - I think Dan Drezner said "piss-poor" quality - or whether I have the wrong e.g. 10-parameter model of why we invaded Iraq or why OBL attacked us.
Brad DeLong,
I am not that interested in whether M&W are antisemitic. What I would like you to do is delete the posts where *your* words appear under *my* name.
Labels: learning to read, poetry