Deliberate misinterpretation?

Technorati Tags: Weekly Standard,Jonathan V Last,Mr Obama,Steve Jobs,Journalistic Integrity

Jonathan V. Last, writing in a newsletter for The Weekly Standard, makes a strange case for the false claim that Mr. Obama is somehow against American entrepreneurs. (I reproduce much of the emailed newsletter below.)

Last includes a paragraph from Mr. Obama’s speech, and then goes on to, what?, deliberately misinterpret his words?

In essence, Mr. Obama states that successful people’s success depends in some measure on help others have given, or infrastructure which has been provided by the body politic. How can his words, taken in context be misconstrued?

Yet Last does misconstrue.  He writes that there is a “…mountain of people who do succeed on their own merits.” And he goes on to laud Steve Jobs as one of those persons.

I wonder if Mr. Jobs would agree with the President or with Mr. Last. Did Jobs invent the internet? Did Jobs acquire the skills needed to produce his first working computer through auto-didactic means? Did he build the garage in which he worked? Did he string the wiring for the electricity he used?

One could go on. Doubtless Last doesn’t care; if he did he wouldn’t have posted this piece in the first place.

Not your finest moment of intellectual integrity, Mr. Last.

Trust, but verify, Dear Gentle Reader(s).

The capture:

July 25, 2012

By Jonathan V. Last

COLD OPEN

It's been over a week, so I want to remind you of President Obama's amazing riff on entrepreneurialism at an event in Roanoke, Virginia. Relive the glory:

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me—because they want to give something back. They know they didn't—look, if you’ve been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something—there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business—you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

It's astonishing, isn't it? I'm on record for being an enormous squish on the question of capitalism, but when I heard this rant, I snapped my head back and thought, Jeez, he doesn’t really believe this? Does he?
It's undeniably true that lots of successful people didn't get rich on their own or through good and valuable work. Plenty of people are born to money, prestige, and power—through no efforts of their own. Plenty of people get rich adding no value—moral or economic—to society. Think about all of the people who've gotten wealthy by trucking in "green energy" over the last few years. Or made killings in finance by working with the derivatives that brought our economy to the brink of collapse. In capitalism, the market is usually efficient and wise in the long term, but market failures happen all the time in the short term. And because of those market failures, plenty of people get rich by accident.
But here's the thing: Those outliers are dwarfed by the mountain of people who do succeed on their own merits. And their success in turn creates the opportunities for others to succeed, too.
Steve Jobs is a popular example of the genius entrepreneur—a guy who succeeded in a crowded space because he had particular talents that no one else did. But whenever I go into an Apple Store, what strikes me is how many opportunities Jobs created for other entrepreneurs. The iPhone and iPad created entire ecosystems where other companies stepped in and prospered along with Apple—cases and cords and apps.
President Obama looks at the Apple Store and sees companies that needed the help of others to succeed.
I look at the Apple Store and see companies whose success helps others succeed as well.

Sphere: Related Content

A Gentle “Sheesh!”

Technorati Tags: The New York Times,Tom Friedman,Language

Even the better writers sometimes goof.

Today it’s the turn of Thomas L Friedman in The New York Times with this bit lifted from today’s column on Iraq:

We overpaid in lives, in the wounded, in tarnished values, in dollars and in the lost focus on America’s development. Iraqis, of course, paid dearly as well.

Now the column is, of course, about America’s involvement and what we, and the world, can hope for in the future; but to use the cavalier of course makes Friedman seem a tad dismissive of the terrible times inflicted upon the Iraqis in our name.

“Of course” is just too casual and clichéd to be used in such a serious matter.

Sheesh!

Trust, but verify. (And that means edit yourself, Tom.)

Sphere: Related Content

Define “huge”

The National Law Journal has a great headline: Hips will be huge next year.

Of course, it isn’t really about pant-size, but it’s a hoot anyway!

Bravo, head writer!

Sphere: Related Content

Plop, Plop

Technorati Tags: Ross Douthat,David Mamet,Language,New York Times,Los Angeles Times

How annoying it is when writers become so lazy that they debase the language along with their ideas.  For instance:

Ross Douthat, discussing the current Weiner foolishness, writes “In the sad case of Representative Anthony Weiner’s virtual adultery, the Internet era’s defining vice has been thrown into sharp relief. It isn’t lust or smut or infidelity, though online life encourages all three. It’s a desperate, adolescent narcissism.”

What is “desperate” about Mr. Weiner’s alleged adolescent narcissism? And just how does Mr. Douthat justify adolescent and narcissism? Has there been a diagnosis? Why can’t adults play without being labeled adolescent?  (And what could be more narcissistic than putting your writing out there for the edification of others?)

(Full disclosure:  I purchased my first convertible in 1986 at the age of 48. A colleague chuckled at my “attempt to recapture my youth.” Huh? Aren’t adults able to enjoy the pleasure of a top down ride? Who wrote those rules?)

Then there’s the recent epiphany of David Mamet into a right wing devotee of she-who-will-not-be-named, and labels NPR “National Palestinian Radio.”

Stupid, unsupported, yea unsupportable phrases indicate a lazy mind. Do they also indicate lazy editors as well as writers?

I cry bovine droppings on this sloppy writing.

Trust, but verify.

Sphere: Related Content

Pish and Piffle

Technorati Tags: Andrew Sullivan,Daily Dish,Left,Language,Politics,Culture Wars

Sometimes Andrew Sullivan is exasperating.

Take this item in today’s Daily Dish: Bronski’s Beat.

It contains these lines:

It has always seemed chilling to me that gay leftists - when pushed to say what they really believe - want to keep gays in some sort of glorious, oppressed, marginalized position, until the majority agrees with the gay left's view of human nature, and revolutionizes straight society as well. This will never happen (and in my view, shouldn't).

Until then, the gay left focuses on demonizing those gays who argue for those who want to belong to their own families as equals, serve their country or commit to one another for life. In this, in my view, the gay left mirrors the Christianist right: they insist that otherness define the minority, even though most members of that minority are born and grow up in the heart of the American family, in all its variations, and of American culture, in all its permutations. No one should be marginalized for seeking otherness. But we are fighting for it to be a choice, not a fate.

All of that because some guy named Bronski wrote a book.

I don’t know Bronski; I don’t care about Bronski; I wish him well, as I would any stranger.

Sullivan, on the other hand (whom I also don’t know except through his writing) is part of my support system—OK, he doesn’t know that nor would he care much. And I find it galling that he would take the words of one, or two or even a hundred of such writers as Bronski and call him/them “the gay left.”

No one in my cohort of friends and acquaintances fits the description of Sullivan’s “the gay left,” but virtually every one of them is gay and/or a politically left person.

Sullivan trips up on his own style when in the first paragraph he uses “gay leftist.” Usually he reserves the suffix “-ist” for such as the odious Christian extremist (Christianist) or the odious Moslem extremist (Islamist).

By the second para he has forgotten that he’s writing about extremists and has omitted the suffix. Which brings me and my friends and acquaintances into the mix. We don’t belong there.

Significant writing error, that omission.

Do you suppose he’ll apologize, Dear Gentle Reader(s)?

Even when reading Sullivan (he will go over the top on occasion), the admonition applies:

Trust, but verify.

Sphere: Related Content

Right Wing Interpretation

Technorati Tags: Egypt,The Daily Dish,Drudge Report,Right Wing,Propaganda,Truth

If you ever needed an example, Dear Gentle Reader(s), of the disingenuousness of far-right propagandists, seek no further.  Thanks to The Daily Dish, we get this from The Drudge Report:

“Military coup?”  Not a “People’s coup?”

No credit the the men and women and children in the streets?

Shame.

Trust, but verify.  (And you really need to verify the Drudge Report!)

Sphere: Related Content

Um…Mr. Friedman…

Technorati Tags: New York Times,Tom Friedman,Egypt,Twitter,Facebook

In today’s New York Times, Tom Friedman discusses the unrest afflicting the Middle East.  In it we find this paragraph:

The Arab world has 100 million young people today between the ages of 15 and 29, many of them males who do not have the education to get a good job, buy an apartment and get married. That is trouble. Add in rising food prices, and the diffusion of Twitter, Facebook and texting, which finally gives them a voice to talk back to their leaders and directly to each other, and you have a very powerful change engine.

Much has been made of the part played in the uprisings by Twitter and Facebook.  A question arises, though:  If there are no jobs and rising food prices, who’s able to pay for access to Twitter and Facebook?

We see pictures of stones.  We do not see pictures of people tweeting; nor do we see pictures of people taking pictures—as we did in the Iranian uprising in 2009.

Clarification, Mr. Friedman?

Trust, but verify.

Sphere: Related Content

Best phrasing of the day…

Technorati Tags: New York Times,Bob Herbert,Gun violence,Language,Politics,Political commentary

Here’s the opening para of Bob Herbert’s piece in today’s New York Times:

By all means, condemn the hateful rhetoric that has poured so much poison into our political discourse. The crazies don’t kill in a vacuum, and the vilest of our political leaders and commentators deserve to be called to account for their demagoguery and the danger that comes with it.

Here’s a nominee for best phrasing:  “The crazies don’t kill in a vacuum.”

There are a lot of commentaries holding that the rhetoric of the right wing cannot be proven to have been related to the shooting in Tucson last Saturday.  See, for instance, David Brooks in the same issue of the Times.

Point taken…if you’re looking for specific, direct-line relativity.

Herbert, though, takes the argument; there is no social vacuum in today’s world.

Trust, but verify.

Sphere: Related Content

Time for an e-mail interview, Ma’am?

Technorati Tags: Salon.com,Time,Alex Pareene

If Time didn’t foresee the fallout from this boondoggle, it deserves the loss of respect it will surely get from this.

“This” is an item in Salon.com by Alex Pareene.

Time gave she-who-will-not-be-named a cover and an interview conducted by e-mail?!?!

Trust, but verify.

Sphere: Related Content

Words have meaning…Continued

Technorati Tags: Andrew Sullivan,Juan Williams,Bill O'Reilly,NPR,Muslim,Religion,Bigotry

And the Juan Williams confab continues.

In a post today, Andrew Sullivan writes…”He said it was legitimate to feel fear when someone in Muslim garb is on a plane.” 

Not quite.  Williams said, “…when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

Now, DGR(s), is fear, which Sullivan used, equal to worried or to nervous?

If Williams had refused to get on the plane with those dressed “in Muslim garb,” then it could be argued that the two words he used are, indeed, equivalent; but he doesn’t indicate in the interview with O’Reilly that he canceled his trip.  The presumption must be that he rode along with those in the “garb,” albeit a touch fidgety.

So, how about Sullivan’s position?  Was Williams really legitimizing fear of Muslims?

One would be hard pressed to think so.

It’s easy to be nervous around anyone who sports religious symbolism in their garb or accessories.  I’m nervous around guys walking around with crosses in their lapels, but I don’t fear them.  I certainly am more aware of what they do when they’re near.

Their presence is always a good time to

Trust, but verify.

(I stand by my support of NPR; their decision was based on their standards about differentiating between reporters and commenters.)

Sphere: Related Content

Um…Say what? (Or, do words have meaning?)

Technorati Tags: NPR,Juan Williams,Michelle Malkin,Townhall.com

Dear, Sweet Juan Williams has found a new permanent home, and good luck to him.

His firing from NPR, and subsequent commentary about that firing, however, raises an old question: do words have meaning?

For instance, when Williams worked for NPR, as little as three days ago, he was a “reporter.”  Now, Michelle Malkin, in a column published in Townhall.com, begins with “commentator Juan Williams.”

And that, Dear Gentle Reader,* is the problem.

In NPR’s eyes, Williams’ “I get nervous” moved him into the category of commentator and out of the category of reporter.

Reporters need to be as objective as possible so that those of us relying on them have the sense that facts are being offered for our edification and consideration.

Otherwise we have entertainment, but not material with which we can make informed decisions.

Listening to some clips of Williams on O’Reilly’s show last night (Sorry, no citation available at this time), one might think Williams was ready for the change in title.

NPR had good reason to let Mr. Williams move on to more lucrative pastures (a lot more money is made bloviating than reporting…alas).

Ladies and Gentlemen, we present the erstwhile reporter, Juan Williams.

Trust, but verify.

Sphere: Related Content

Muckroom Follies 3.25.08 A Horseshoe Nail

Dear Gentle Reader(s), there must've been a pony at one time in the Townhalldotcom Muckroom; one has found another nail!

Cal Thomas has penned Typical for today's Muckroom. In it Thomas addresses race and makes an interesting case. He, of course, is spurred by Senator Obama's recent speech, and he seems to second the senator's basic premise: This accusatory back and forth between races will continue beyond the current election unless all of us stop replaying past grievances. One can criticize some of what Obama said (and I have), but his appeal to lay the past to rest and move on to a better future is compelling and worth discussing. The piece is well worth reading.

(It must be said, DGR(s), that Thomas' claim to be "typical" is a bit much. He moves in a rather rarefied world. His point that he is "prudent," however, rings true. Most adults will cross the street if nearing an encounter with any thuggish looking group of young males!)

Trust, indeed, but verify!

Cal Thomas

Race

Sphere: Related Content

Chauvinism?

Jonathan Alter on "Countdown" this evening had a questionable moment or two on this evening's broadcast. He said that Senator Clinton had, in effect, exaggerated her role in the Kosovo peace talks during the tenure of President Clinton.

Really? Perhaps Mr. Alter should re-read Paradise Lost, Dear Gentle Readers), and the part about "they also serve who stand and wait." Can the importance of a finely tuned dinner, or the setting of a conference dealing with war and peace, be denigrated? The comfort of the delegates' physical needs is to be dismissed?

Foolishly blinkered viewpoint is the hallmark of a person with limited vision. Perhaps Mr. Alter, and Mr. Olberman, who offered no resistance to Alter's remarks, should re-think the comments. While Mrs. Clinton might not have had "clearance," it is incomprehensible to think that a person with the experience in Washington politics which Mr. Alter has would think that she had no input. Or that her work as a help meet was inconsequential.

Trust, but verify.

Jonathan Alter
Hillary Clinton

Sphere: Related Content

Muckroom Follies 3.13.08 Historical Accuracy?

Over at the Muckroom, one William Rusher offers another paean to William F. Buckiley, Jr., and the mid-20th century rise of "conservatism."

That's OK. One expects, Dear Gentle Reader(s), that such would appear upon the occasion of the passing of Buckley and that such will continue for some time. After all, given the current public regard for the conservative movement as exemplified by the Bush administration, they're going to resurrect whatever shining moments they can for as long as they need.

One wonders, though, why they don't include President Lyndon Johnson as a major player in the rise of conservatism. After all, Mr. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which, according to some, gave the conservatives the opportunity to capitalize on the festering social unrest of the day: America was a segregated country when LBJ came to power. It wasn't when he left. From his very first hours in office, he would move to combat it on a broad front. But he also knew not an inch would be won cheaply. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is to many of us a watershed in American history. It was one of the most exhilarating triumphs of the Johnson years. Yet, late on the night of signing the bill, I found the President in a melancholy mood. I asked what was troubling him. "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come," he said. Even as his own popularity soared in that heady year, the President saw the gathering storm of a backlash.

Senator Goldwater's "Southern Strategy" enabled the Republican party to gain a foothold in the South, and the rest is, as they say, history.

Buckley's intellectual foundation making aside, the conservatives of 2008 would not have been so successful without the progressive vision and determination to do the right thing of Lyndon B. Johnson.

Don't, though, expect too many conservative water carriers to acknowledge LBJ's contribution. They're ashamed of what it made them do.

WF Buckley
LBJ

Sphere: Related Content

Brooks in a barrel

Tsk! No, Dear Gentle Reader(s)! Not that kind of a barrel! The barrel in which one shoots at fish.

Dear, dear David Brooks pens this wonderful sentence--"He [Senator McCain] has some excellent ideas, like his plan to control health care costs, which he doesn’t explain well"--in his column today.

Tsk #2. Dave, poopsie, what do you mean? If the idea is not well explained, then how do you know it's "excellent?"

Probably a slip of the metaphorical pen, eh? Editor out to lunch? Or does Senator McCain have a minion going around to right wing pundits clarifying his ideas so that they become "excellent?"

Excellent ideas without clear explanation are probably not that excellent--especially an idea about health care. Isn't that buying a pig in a poke?

Trust, but verify.

Sphere: Related Content

Irresponsible Assertions?

Over at Townhall.com, the use of unattributed assertions continues apace.

For instance, a columnist named John Andrews has a contribution, Can Muhammad and Jefferson Coexist?

As far as it goes, it raises interesting questions. Islam, to the best of my knowledge, is both a religion as well as a way of governing. It is, basically, generally understood, to be a theocracy. I don't know for certain. I've never seen citations for a particular surah which would give credence to that understanding.

Andrews' column also provides an assertion, "How can Muhammad’s teaching that women and unbelievers, especially Jews, are inferior square with Jefferson’s “all created equal”?

Good question, and an interesting assertion, but there is no citation for the claim that Muhammad teaches anything like women and unbelievers and Jews are inferior. Haven't we Westerners been told that Muhammad taught that people of "the book" were to be left to their own religions? (Of course, there's generally no provision of a surah for that teaching either!)

Making such assertions without the accompanying citation is either academically lazy or partisanship at its worst. We know how important context is. We've seen its misuse in advertising and in politics. We know spin doctors' first law is "Do whatever it takes to stress the point."

Any westerner who writes anything about Islam without citing a Surah should be held suspect.

The American prople have been credulous too long. We must demand honesty and openness in our politicians as well as, and probably more importantly, from those who would be exponents of policies.

Sphere: Related Content