TIME magazine has seen these photos. How many nefarious actions will go unnoticed while the public fusses and fights over their meaning?
In one shot that TIME saw, Bush appears with Abramoff, several unidentified people and Raul Garza Sr., a Texan Abramoff represented who was then chairman of the Kickapoo Indians, which owned a casino in southern Texas. Garza, who is wearing jeans and a bolo tie in the picture, told TIME that Bush greeted him as “Jefe,” or “chief” in Spanish. Another photo shows Bush shaking hands with Abramoff in front of a window and a blue drape. The shot bears Bush’s signature, perhaps made by a machine. Three other photos are of Bush, Abramoff and, in each view, one of the lobbyist’s sons (three of his five children are boys). A sixth picture shows several Abramoff children with Bush and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who is now pushing to tighten lobbying laws after declining to do so last year when the scandal was in its early stages.
That George knowing Jack is even a matter of debate says it all about America and its citisens. Dumber than a box of rocks.
That George knowing Jack is even a matter of debate says it all about America and its citisens. Dumber than a box of rocks.
With all respect, I remain convinced that the primary reason the electorate does not trust political progressives is the tendency for the latter to use every problem as evidence that Americans are idiots.
This makes you subject to derision if you cannot spell “citizens.”
Seriously, please compare the rhetoric of [say] political radicals in Western Europe to that of the same in the USA. With the rare exception of Albert Camus and Gunter Grass, you will notice the European Left/radicals were so respectful of their compatriots that they eventually overtook the right as spokespersons of national pride.
In contrast, actually making a comparison between the USA and a European country that is favorable to the USA or neutral, is quite literally unthinkable for the left in the USA. As a consequence, those who are not already absorbed in matters of policy can be reasonably expected to believe if the left ever comes to power in the USA, it will be explicitly antipithetical to the interests of US nationals.
With all respect, I remain convinced the “electorate”, redistricted to the point of irrelevance by “two” parties that act as one, is comprised of persons so bent on believing in America’s goodness they require no proof of it. And you offer none.
By “political progressives” you mean? If you’re referring to progressive DLC’ers and those “radicals” at MoveOn, then the citisenry would be wise not to trust them unless they’re satisfied with the status quo. But you can’t mean them since they are usually busied pushing to the front of the propaganda line to soothe the ruffled egos of this informed electorate you defend. If you mean folks like Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn, et. al., they define trustworthiness when afforded the opportunity to be heard. But you can’t mean them since their scholarship is not mindlessly negative, rather it identifies problems and alternatives.
Zounds. You must mean me. If I were asked to spell citisen in a spelling bee I’d spell it with a “z” if I cared about advancing. But since this is my blog I use an “s” because I prefer it. I think “z” is arguably the most abused phonetic in the English language, ignored in most words that employ it but spoken when not, as in xenophobe. Deride me if you must. But how will we ever nurture this mutual respect you seek?
U.S. nationals view the left as “antipathetical” to their interests or the “right” views anti-Bush Democrats who claim to be on the left unpatriotic? They all couch in “free trade” rhetoric the deployment of U.S. military and economic forces against countries that pursue alternatives to capitalism. One group favours pillow talk over rape but they all demand respect in the morning. I view this sense of entitlement to be most antipathetical to the interests of everyone involved and is indefensible according to my leftist dictionary.
The “left”, “right” and “center” are malleable adjectives in America’s political lexicon. At no time in American history have they been more misused or divorced from historical roots be they European or otherwise. I find nothing particularly enterprising or admirable about Europe’s current course. What I do find interesting is your deference to only it and the USA in your curtain call for the woebegone “left” but I suppose if one’s intent is haranguing leftists it’s best to ignore Latin America.
I’m sorry, your response is incoherent. You need to proofread your remarks before posting.
With all respect, I remain convinced the “electorate”, redistricted to the point of irrelevance by “two” parties that act as one, is comprised of persons so bent on believing in America’s goodness they require no proof of it. And you offer none.
I suppose you have grammatical peculiarities as well. “Comprised of” is incorrect usage; either the electorate “comprises” something, or the electorate is “composed of” something. If ” redistricted to the point of irrelevance by “two” parties that act as one”, then you cannot make generalizations about the intelligence of the electorate.
You say, ” persons so bent on believing in America’s goodness they require no proof of it. And you offer none.” Again, you yourself have obviated the possibility of any such evidence. Listen, if you wish to be convincing, please do something about your reasoning skills. I honestly don’t know what you are trying to say.
The folks at Cambridge use “comprised of” in the manner I did. Perhaps you should inform them of their error.
I did not generalise about the intelligence of the electorate in that particular sentence. I pitied their irrelevance and blamed their blind faith in the goodness of America for their apathetic condition.
I certainly didn’t remove any barrier to providing such evidence, I placed that burden directly upon your shoulders. You seem to be the critter doing the obviating.
It’s such fun to be critiqued by a literary giant. Shall we continue to the next sentence?
The folks at Cambridge use “comprised of” in the manner I did. Perhaps you should inform them of their error.
Sorry, I am deeply saddened to see they accepted that. “Comprised” means, “including” or “embracing.” I have noticed a tendency for many dictionaries to accelerate the rate at which common grammatical errors are “recognized” as canonical usage.
Perhaps you think I am being astonishingly arrogant to shake my head in sorrow when you thrust the Cambridge Dictionary at me. Please allow me to explain. Part of the act of dissent is to understand the difference between change as an organic process and change as the arrival of an insidious new trend. Dissent against the decline of musical fashions one loves is, obviously, “old fartism.” Dissent against the decline of accountability for public officials, while the more dangerous of the two, is assuredly more worthy and meaningful.
I have no pretensions to being a literary giant or an arbiter, but it pains me when grammatical or lexicographic barbarism is simply accepted because “everyone does it.” It is terribly ironic, although I’m not really blaming you, that whereas you object to pandering to the national vanity in the abstract, I am objecting to the tendency to pander to ignorance by revising the dictionaries in deference to the popular trend. If I were really claiming to defend exceptional US goodness–I am not–then I would be likewise pandering to popular vanity.
(The reason why merely saying “comprised of” = “composed of” fails to make it correct, even when a major British publishing house does it, is that the structure and disposition of words follows a thread of logic. Disregard for this thread not only sows confusion or irritation, but also jeopardizes the logical foundations of grammar. If you study foreign languages, you will understand what I am trying to say. If a barbaric mutillation of, say, Russian declension, is adopted simply as part of a mania for things western, then the mechanism by Russian “works” will be threatened. Moreover, English has a rhythm and logical structure that is surprisingly algebraic. Contrary to popular conceit, there really is a platonic “right” and “wrong,” that applies to truth and the language used to speak it.)
The correlation between grammatical usage and moral clarity–I mean, authentic moral clarity–is real. There is an obvious analogy between the survival of logical reasoning skills and correct grammar; both are important to the kind of clear judgment that allows one to confront abuse of power.
I did not generalise about the intelligence of the electorate in that particular sentence. I pitied their irrelevance and blamed their blind faith in the goodness of America for their apathetic condition.
These two sentences directly contradict each other. Either the electorate is irrelevant, in which case you cannot make a valid generalization of them, or they are relevant enough to furnish evidence supporting such a generalization.
“Apathy” can arise from many causes, none of which includes a “blind faith in the goodness” [whatever that means] of America. A more plausible alternative is that the electorate comprises millions of individuals, with different points of view, different capacities for observation and action, and mutually contradictory impressions of reality. Apathy about public matters is a likely outcome of believing the nation is not worth saving, or that there is no goodness to which one may appeal.
I would argue that, taken as an abstract, universal ideal, the left elevates social values above economic ones. Whereas the right (again, as a universal abstract) elevates the social relations of production, the left calls upon the whole of society to challenge those social relations on behalf of some other social good. If the actual, real-world “left” is compulsively scornful of the society to which it must appeal, then it is really a form of sanctimonious nihilism, not the idealism of its pretensions.
Miriam Webster states that the usage, appearing at least since the 18th century, is still attacked as wrong. However, they aren’t sure why that’s so. According to MW, it appeared chiefly in scientific and technical writing before making its way into belles lettres, where it now appears somewhat more frequently than the earlier senses. So mathematicians initiated this assault upon the algebraic structure of the English language. “About 8 percent of our military forces are comprised of women” – Jimmy Carter. And presidents joined their ranks.
Dictionary.com writes “surveys show that opposition to this usage is abating. In the 1960s, 53 percent of the Usage Panel found this usage unacceptable; in 1996, only 35 percent objected.”
This is hardly an example of barbarous masses battering down the pristine walls of academia. Yet you claim this usage is just that – barbaric vs. organic – I “thrust” the Cambridge reference at you? I linked it.
I hold no grudge against you, Mr. MacLean, for being knowledgeable in areas where I may be remiss, but if your style of informing is how it’s done in ivory towers I feel less sorry that I missed the experience. Do you have a military background? You approach conversation as though you have all the answers and your mission on earth is to tear down “others” so your views alone stand in their wake. I’m beginning to think you cowardly in refusing to finally clarify your position. Seriously, if misspellings or grammatical errors were sufficient reasons to nullify the entirety of opinions of those who make them you qualified as a target in that shooting gallery two posts ago. But I don’t want to eliminate you, Mr. MacLean. I just want you to open up.
“There really is a platonic “right” and “wrong,” that applies to truth and the language used to speak it.)”
A platonic truth? Could you give me this lone example if it applies to something other than birth, the need for sustenance to maintain life, and death, of course? And if you meant “there really are platonic rights and wrongs that apply…”, then other examples as well?
I disagree that apathy cannot arise from an abiding belief in the goodness of America, by which I mean, that the worst America has to offer is still better than the best any other country can bring to the table. You say this argument would not be recognised in the halls of academia, but it resonates here in the trenches of the unwashed masses.
Your summation of the left and right is akin to entering Plato’s allegorical cave. The Democrats have empowered the lower classes as well as the Republicans have reduced the size of gov’t. Neither believes in free trade you claim only the “left” opposes. This is who I am referring to when I speak about the left. Where do they fit into your truth?
Wow! You showed him! What a pompous jackass! I bet he swaggers about campus in a tophat, tails, and spats, and lights his cigars with hundred dollar bills! I’ll bet he lives in an actual, honest to pete ivory tower, surrounded by the stinking corpses of lots of slaughtered elephants!
Kudos for ignoring what he actually said! Why listen such rank enemies of the people? Just shoot the mad dog! That’s the spirit!
Bloody bastard. I bet he bathes every month. Coward doesn’t even have a world view that will fit on a bumper sticker. You go, Girl!
Mr. MacLean – When comments are queued the IP address is recorded. Why post under an alias?