DISQUS

Chuck and Life, I understand. Great shows. Terminator? (Shrugs shoulders). Still, all of it's better than the crap most people watch. Desperate Housewives? NCIS? (Makes Lurch groaning noise from Addams Family)

The last in my effort to elicit predictable responses...

Bettyboopoogle writes:

"Ah, threats. You cowards are good at threats..."

This for me is clear evidence that while Betty likes to play in this sandbox, she lacks the buckets and shovels to play well. My snarky reference to "hate mail" was in reference to Betty's own comments about "sockpuppets." People use psuedonyms because they like to avoid harrassment, identifying themselves personally, etc. Betty, reading with the consistent sharpness displayed in this thread translates that observation into a series of vile, repugnant physical threats and then insinuates that everyone who opposes her (I believe "you people" was the exact language) is comfortable with such repulsive ideas.

I'm embarrased for Betty. More than she probably is for herself.

Anyway, she also writes:

"...Big boys do their own reading! Of course, when you completely lack reading comprehension..."

Actually, big boys and girls make an argument and support it with observations, facts, and other things that apparently distract Betty from the most exciting business of name-calling, libellous, rancor. Betty's schtick seems to be dodging the issue using relative obvious tactics, such as invective, claiming victory ("...that's already been defeated."), and pretending to have a light-hearted approach to the subject (belied by the invective).

Betty finally admits to "mocking" me (pardon the *snort* of my own, *hon*) but it wasn't exactly difficult to tell. Mocking is apparently all Betty's got to work with.

Another Betty-ism:

"What part of "SATIRE" do you morons not understand? The entire post is a sarcastic jab at something..."

The invective aside, this is one of Betty's better efforts, so I'll give the unsnarky response.

The point is that the "joke" depends on the author's understanding of how the individuals mentioned sound. I'm not as familiar with D'Souza's voice, but Ponnuru's is midwestern. The problem is that the way the line is written, it implies that the character voice of the "satirist" knows exactly how they sound. But if the individuals in question don't have heavy foreign accents, that leads us to believe that the actual writer, as opposed to the character voice, assumes they did.

So either the racial implication exists in the author's mind, or they did a poor job of writing the "joke." Given that the supposed purpose of the "joke" itself depends on either the racial supposition or an insulting and dishonest generalization of conservatives, it should hardly be a source of pride.

What is interesting about Betty's comment is that the writer she quoted obviously liked the piece otherwise (and apparently self-identifies as not on the right) and yet Betty still felt obligated to call them a moron.
Anne:

I'm sorry that I didn't find the obvious all that funny. BTW - Anyone can type LOL and people frequently do, even when the laughs are internal and supportive. I have no doubt that some people found it hilarious, but the lack of agreement across political lines is a clear sign that the truth of the jokes (truth - either literal or associative - being a joke's best ally) is lacking or subjective at best.

Again, political humor is difficult. Not impossible, just difficult.

Thers writes:

"Wow. Do you also get to go on cruises with them?"

No, but they let us use the limo on weekends.

FYI - I was thinking of the Soros post, especially where Thers is concerned.

Bettyboondoggle writes:

"You know what else I like: obvious sockpuppets.

And, how conservatives always pick on imaginary thing to harp on in order to ignore the actual POINT."

Don't know if that was aimned at me but I would still like to ask...So, is Boondoggle part of your first name or your last name? Just so people who are so inclined (present company excluded) know where to send the hate mail. :)

I'm not in any way affiliated with NRO myself other than as a reader and a Facebook friend of a few of the writers and editors, but there are lots of us.

As for ignoring the actual point, what exactly was the point of this "brilliant" post? That conservatism is on the outs at the moment in Washington? I didn't realize the purpose of satire was to point out the mundanely obvious. I'm a long time from my English major though, so maybe postmodernism's caught up to literary genre.

Actually Betty has done as good a job of ignoring Ponnuru's point (or answering the specific charges of other commenters) as anyone... and trolling is as trolling does *honey* If Betty weren't so morbidly entertaining, I'd have ignored her posts enitrely.

dareva writes:

"The way of the satirist is harsh and thankless at times."

And unproductive, don't forget unproductive. I mean satire should be thought-provoking, or amusing. I grant the above post is well-written in the technical sense and there's a nice sense of logicial construction as far as structure goes (well, the build up is a little long, but I consider myself a patient reader and often write the same way) but the payoff is underwhelming. I stand by my comments above regarding the difficulty of political humor and would add that the great danger of failing at political humor is to come off sounding bitter and mirthless (or erratic - see Bettyboopdoggle's - excuse me, Boondoggle's post above)

Anyway, I don't fault the attempt, I'm just cataloguing the results, and noting that Ponnuru has a point if he's referring to the D'Souza/Ponnuru sound-like line.

*Thers,* now there's someone with a real sense of humor.

Stephen Colbert called... he wants his schtick back.

And they say the right's sense of humor is tourtured. If this is "wit" the real Jonathan Swift must be doing triple-gainers in his tomb right about now.

This is why political humor is so difficult. When only one side of the political aisle is laughing at your jokes, they're not funny, they're just convenient.

There was one thing that made me chuckle. I've heard Ramesh Ponnuru's voice before and he sounds exactly like where he's from: Kansas City.

That alone justifies Ponnuru's assertion of racism. Picking two guys because of their names and assuming they have thick accents is pretty much what it looks like.

Oh, and always be skeptical of comments that use terms like "motherland." There's nothing stopping Renken from putting on a Zambia shirt now, is there?

This is the same crap anti-English article that has been making the rounds. Arsenal's player development program is one of the top in the world. The signs of this is how many Arsenal players are plying their trade in the top two divisions in England, not to mention elsewhere (Italy for one).

The name-dropping is just cherry-picking. Beasley spent his younger years with the Chicago Fire. PSV no more "developed" him than Man U developed Wayne Rooney. Of all the Holland-developed players mentioned, only O'Brien and Bradley can be said to have significant development there and even Bradley has only spend a year or two in Holland, having been with NY before that... and O'Brien, who did come up through the Ajax ranks, unfortunately had injuries ruin his career, so we'll never know what his potential would have been, but he never played for a club bigger than Ajax.

Meanwhile, Rogers, who I'll agree has potential, is in Columbus. Berhalter and Deering aren't exactly sterling examples to fall back on. Kirovski had a more regular run out for a time that Deering in the MNT.

Anyway, Renken seems set on joining Arsenal, so the verdict will be handed down in a few years, regardless of the one-sided biases in this article. I predict that if Renken sticks it out, he'll come away a stronger player. Potential is always difficult to determine, but the Arsenal system will give him time and experience in a world-class environment.

Simek isn't the same kind of player Arsenal develops, and was at an earlier stage of Wenger's career (if indeed Wenger actually signed him - if not, that only emphasizes the first point). Holland spends more time developing players technically, yes, but not any more than Arsenal (and given the style of football Arsenal play, not as well on average, though a chance to train with Ajax would be closer to the Arsenal standard.)

Plus, it's not like Kirovski, Cooper, and Spector didn't exactly pan out. There's a little cherry-picking going on when Beasley is included among the Dutch players, since he was already a pro in MLS before he went over. Bradley is promising but still untested against quality opposition. His defense is tough, but his passing is overrated at this stage of his career. O'Brien is the only other one on the Dutch list that makes sense and injuries make it difficult to assess his overall career. He had to turn to MLS towards the end because he wasn't getting minutes in Holland.

Suffice to say, this article has a lot of anti-England baggage that ignores the fact that any youth player with an Arsenal offer have the opportunity of a lifetime, and any US player that can work with Wenger's side will only help the program.

My take is that Ross' perspective is akin to the passage in the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus states that whoever has looked at a woman with lust has committed adultery. Jesus is speaking specifically of true holiness here, as opposed to the practical appliacation of adultery laws (which had very real and serious consequences then), pointing out that mankind's pretenses to righteousness and holiness were meaningless in God's eyes, and that grace was the need of all.

That idea combined with the practical sense that pornography diminishes or complicates the martial sexual relationship is hardly simplistic. There are serious moral implications to the latter idea and dismissing it simply because it doesn't fit into ones own moral worldview is simply a way of not engaging the idea on its own terms. Are there marriage relationships that have been damaged by pornography? Yes, and it is as fruitless an exercise to pretend that the participants in those relationships are somehow unenlightened or morally backwards as it is to assume that all men look at porn on a regular basis unless they are dead below the waist.

I think it's safe to say that all men struggle with the temptation of pornography, but many do struggle, recognizing the explotative nature of the industry and the specific practice, not to mention the moral implications upon relationships. There's nothing neurotic or (as one unreflective commenter suggested) stupid about recognizing this.

An open view of divorce isn't the answer either. Divorce, except where aboslutely necessary (abuse, unfaithfulness) only cheapens relationships. The notion that "it's not working out" might just as easily be the notion that "we're not trying hard enough" or "we're being too selfish." Where families are concerned, ease of disengagement denies the ties that the relationship creates, especially where kids are concerned.

In addition, the Sermon on the Mount reference demonstrates that Will's analogies of Ross' position are particularly unhelpful. When someone views porn with lustful thoughts or simply has lustful thoughts about a person not their partner, they are actively engaging in a psychological form of adultery in that they are imagining what would in real life be adultery. However, people don't generally smoke with the thought of suicide, or pay the minimum wage with the perpective that they seek to enslave their employees. Intent is important (although admittedly not everything) when viewing actions from a moral perspective. Where porn is concerned, mental adultery is a large part of the bargain.

That's one reason why I don't get the mystification bit. It feels like Will is reacting rather than reflecting.

"The arguments for the moral legitimacy of state - for example those of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Hume, Hegel, Rawls, and Habermas - are unsound."

Gee, that's not a very big assumption, is it?

As for myself, believing in government by consent of the people, the basic moral argument is that the preservation of civil and human rights is a social enterprise. Anarchy cannot preserve civil rights at all, having no organized authority or mechanism to do so. There is certainly a fair debate to be had on the level of organization or the power that the state mechanism should have (one reason cherry pickings like "Nazi Germany" and "Pol Pot's Cambodia" are far less convincing than "Sweden" is that Sweden's is far more representative of self-govenrment). However, there is a relatively simple argument that, morally, anarchy provides greater opportunity for unjustified government to rise to power than does an organized, representative government using the minimal amount of "coercion."

One of the great problems with such too-clever-by-half philosophical arguments like these is that they don't truly function in the real world. The only way an uncoercive state of anarchy could exist for long is if everyone agrees to respect each others rights. That such respect has not been accomplised in human history, even with some level of organization and coercion (over those who would run roughshod over the defenseless in such a system), makes the argument very much akin to angels and the heads of pins.

It's certainly fair to observe that organized, "coercive" governments have failed to reach a state of civil harmony, as far as individual rights go, but it's folly to pretend that in the real world any state of anarchy could come as close as these systems have. One must also argue this from a global perspective. Cherry-picking the ad-hoc example of some small, fairly harmonious collective that managed to avoid organized government for a time is stealing a base. Those naturally get swallowed up, either by oppresive forms of government or the representative ones, the latter being a far better compromise.