Afghanistan the Argument.
Victor Davis Hanson told me Tuesday 1 that POTUS remarks about hi Afghanistan decision lacked heart, that he spoke from the intellect, that his speech was less than effective. "Underwhelmed" is the word that VDH used. Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the Nation, also commented on POTUS tone. She regarded the last quarter of the speech as the most effective part when he spoke of the missions to accomplish other than Afghanistan. She regarded the first three-qurters of the speech, speaking the details of the Afghan decision, as mechanical and not convincing. Two professional speakers and writers, from widely divergent political positions, both pointing to the lack of heart, energy, committment, or passion in the POTUS words about Afghanistan.
One has to admit that Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and the problems of the region as a whole doesn't provide much to get excited about.
I think the President is justifiably concerned with the situation and was speaking weightily to the young men and women who are tasked with the mission. As he said, he is well aware of the difficulties and he was looking out upon those faces of the warriors who he will be sending off to do battle against an enemy whise tactics are well known.
Reasonably somber, yet, confident in deliberation. Much too serious to be caught up in ballyhoos.
None of us speak eloquently - or with heart - about that which frightens us. Barack Obama is in a fix. On one hand, he needs to satisfy those who brought him to the wedding; while on the other, he needs to satisfy the bride. We, the American people, are Barack Obama's bride. If she should begin to suspect that he's playing around, she might grab his golf clubs and beat the crap out of his SUV. If those who brought him should leave him stranded... Well, you know the rest. (By the way, I think it’s a disgrace the way the media is hounding Woods. For once, it doesn't seem to be political.)
By the way, last week I saw something I have never seen in these parts before. My son and I usually take a walk uptown after dinner. We live in a bedroom community twenty miles from New York City along the commuter rail line. The commercial district consists of banks, upscale stores and eateries. We noted a man walking a dog, which is not unusual in itself, except this dog seemed mighty strange. It looked and walked funny. As we got closer, we noticed it wasn't a dog; it was a goat. (I've never seen anyone walking a goat, even in India.)
I'd been led to understand that it was illegal to keep farm animals inside our city limits. But, then, things do change. When I got home I checked the net and found that we were only a couple of days away from Eid-Ul-Adha, the Muslim 'Festival of Sacrifice' marking the day after Arafat.
http://peterkoelliker.blogspot.com/
So, it's the PotUS' fault that someone defies a city ordinance that prohibits a man to possess and/or walk a goat down your favorite street?
Did YOU do something about it? File a complaint, you know how to do that very well.
Spencer, get a new gig...some of us enjoy hearing what Peter has to say.
Spencer - I had a somewhat of a brainstorm last night. What with John Batchelor now doing seven nights (on the radio) a week, it is conceivable that he is severely limited on time. (When does the poor man ever sleep?) I understand that he still has to put out regular missives for this site. But we can't expect him to also filter out every last brainless comment sent in from his pool of often subversively inclined commentators, which is now certain to grow by leaps and bounds.
I therefore propose that you, Spencer, offer to help John with the editing and selecting - from among what is soon to become a virtual avalanche of submissions - only those that would, in your opinion, fit appropriately the template and character of the enterprise. This would accomplish two things. One, it would put John's feverish mind to rest, assuring him that the site is being well managed; and, two, it would give you a chance to summarily dispatch any comments, such as mine, that appear to disturb you so profoundly. Additionally, it would give you the opportunity to cut your own output by at least half, as you would no longer feel compelled to respond to comments critical of the president.
I would have to find a new site to ‘pollute’; as you say, there are plenty of those around. Besides, as you so often point out, I have my own – or I could give it up altogether and take up finger painting. In any case, a win–win for all concerned.
I’m assuming you’re still a young man and have plenty of time to develop a power resumé. The position I urge you to pursue would go a long way to give you real-world experience and credibility. If you, then, play your cards right, you may even eventually catch the eye of one of your favorite President-for-life Barack Hussein Obama’s ‘truth’ czars who may well want to install you in a tenured position somewhere within the media arm of our emerging socialist republic. (Sorry, I just couldn’t help myself.) Best of luck, my friend!
http://peterkoelliker.blogspot.com/
I have suspected for quite some time that Mr. Batchelor reads the comments on this site only sporadically, if at all. Not that I fault him for this. As you point out, he is a busy man.
Five or six years ago, through an unlikely set of circumstances, I briefly hosted a Saturday afternoon talk show on a ridiculously small radio station--the bathrooms didn't even have hot water!--here in the small Southern town I call home. This was in addition to my day job and various writing endeavors. The stress and overwork connected with even that modest gig taught me a great deal of respect for real talk show hosts.
Luckily for me the owner switched to an all-sports format ten months into my show, and I got my life back.
How does Mr. Batchelor do it? More importantly, will he ever find the time to write another of his (usually) wonderful novels?
Comments critical of the President is not what you are practicing.
It goes beyond that. You go into fantasy land.
Fanatastic!
Whoops, I double dipped an a... I meant FANSTASTIC
Darnit! I meant FANTASTIC
What's the title to this thread, anyway? Intellect?
I would accept that gig Peter talks about, but, I wouldn't limit the conversation like he suggests.
I would just keep asking for resubmittals over and over... you know, so ho
The best way to deal with the problem is to simply refuse to respond to the disruptive blogger. Completely ignore him or her. They get starved for attention and finally go away.
The problem with Spencer is that he's smart enough to know when he's gone over the line and gets friendly and reasonable for a while and talks nice to us and gets us to participate in a give and take, and then reverts to his old ways. It's kind of like saying "here-kitty-kitty-kitty" and then punching the cat when it gets close enough. (No real animals were harmed in this analogy.)
So, I for one am going to just stop responding to his posts at all, nice or nasty. Anyone join me?
"The problem with Spencer is that he's smart enough to know when he's gone over the line and gets friendly and reasonable for a while and talks nice to us and gets us to participate in a give and take, and then reverts to his old ways."
You noticed that as well, eh?
I am sobered to note how technology--created by the intelligent--has empowered the faceless bullies and cowards that lurk among us. Sometimes I ask myself if we were wrong to create the microprocessor, and should have stuck with decently human analog technologies such phonographs and manual typewriters.
"So, I for one am going to just stop responding to his posts at all, nice or nasty. Anyone join me?"
Hell, yes. When I see that troll's pseudonym on a comment I know that something stupid is about to happen, two things if I actually read it. And three things if anybody bothers to reply.