Windy and Scriv

Madame M:

There is an apparently popular book out about snarkiness. I saw it in passing at a bookstore. It even has the word “Snark” in the title.

Well, Obama was never a full-time professor, but perhaps that’s parsing a little too much. :)

Such a rare thing, yes. It seldom matters anymore what facts are presented. People are so emotionally invested in their positions, that upon the first thing they read that they emotionally disagree with (and often feel, predictably—if erringly—enough in our disconnected society, to be attacking them as a person, requiring a full scale salvo on the other person’s person, not the position taken), they stop reading and begin dismissing and attacking. They rarely attack the presented facts, however; they attack the writer of them, often accusing that writer of “pushing an agenda,” or worse, of being some aspect of evil. Even on the rare occasions that they do address the facts, it is usually only in general form—they almost never discuss specific facts. At best, they cherry pick a few, and even then, often twist them into bizarre interpretations. It is so rare, isn’t it, to find a discussion that does not degenerate into this pattern? Guess that’s one of the reasons we founded this blog, hmm? :)

Irritated? I almost changed your address to Mad Dame M! ;) Seriously, I am irritated at most of the things you listed as well. I am a bit on the fence about federal judges, however. While I recognize that judges of various political persuasions have seemed a bit pro-active in their rulings and interpretations, I often (although certainly nowhere near always) find upon reading their opinions that they have applied serious thought and consideration and both appreciation for precedent and wording of the law. Yet there do seem instances where matters have clearly been stretched beyond reasonableness, and perhaps even into manipulation, with Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission and Kelo vs. City of New London probably among the most egregious of examples. Roe vs. Wade might also be put in that category (for its trumping of states’ rights more than the issue at hand), although at least its legal arguments could be followed, if not agreed with. Yet the “will of the people” is not always a clear thing, and their emotional variability and susceptibility are some of the reasons the Framers made federal judges have lifetime appointments not subject to whims of the moment or emotional override of the law and Constitution, but rather unhurried and reasoned legal review (that was the goal, anyway).

You ask, after listing all the things you (and largely I too) are irritated with, “is this who we are?” While I suspect that underneath much of the crass veneer, there still exists much real or potential clearheaded goodness of the American people, perhaps too much has already been given over to the shift (including about understanding, as you’ve indicated) analyzed in Chris Hedges’ “Empire of Illusion” (a book I suspect will be the next thing we discuss after we have discussed these books).

Obama’s writing style, and Beck’s, reflect the tight yet easy hand of a lawyer who has written a lot of briefings, and who has had the benefit of many good editors and critiquing friends—Obama because he is a lawyer, Beck because his writing assistant is one.

Beck is a bit of an enigma to me. Partly because he has been accepted by many, and dismissed by just as many, there is much about him and his assertions to both like and dislike. He points out things that need pointing out and emphasized, and should be lauded for trying to spur people to take an interest in their gasping democracy, in their history, in the “system.” His efforts are especially laudatory for emphasizing, as you say, the massive debt hanging over us like the Sword of Damocles (and which Obama has been deficient in emphasizing, not only in his book, but since). And for pointing out the near-criminal hypocrisy, denial, and visionless stupidity of Washington and its associates, so sickeningly demonstrated by the congresswoman you mentioned. More on this in future posts.

Beck and I often part ways, however, when he carries his assertions, or the causes of those assertions, to ends I can’t agree with logically, or to historical interpretations that don’t stand up to this historian’s (and many’s) understandings. And Beck has regrettably/disturbingly transgressed on more than one occasion from trumpeting self-taught to mocking dismissal of teachers, particularly professors--a sort of reverse intellectual discrimination. I am not sure he could ever share such a forum as this one. Although he does invite certain professors to his show, they usually seem carefully selected to not question the goods (or the assumptions) in the apple cart. More on this in future posts.

Obama writes and reasons generally well in his book, and although emphasis and implication and desired action can sometimes be disagreed with, the reasonableness and common interest often comes across (one of the reasons, I take it, that his book energized so many).

Yet Obama, in well over the last year, has been either prickly or defensive, like he’s not listening. He’s more than a bit narcissistic in both public and in his writings, although in his writing it is more an odd mixture of introspection and narcissism. When questioned, he wants to explain HIS view on a lot of things, and extensively, and he wants to drive HIS objectives. He rubs people the wrong way partly because he no longer speaks or acts in the approachable manner he did before, and yet, at the same time, hasn’t transformed to fully presidential either. He hasn’t really communicated things well, and hasn’t been publicly active like a Ronald Reagan, for instance, or a Bill Clinton. He doesn’t smile nearly enough. He hasn’t connected. And his lack of executive experience has shown a great deal, not to mention his reliance on the same general cadre of Ivy-League establishment insiders, with the same general ideas, the same general policies, the same serving of the corporate consortium, and the same cynical attempts at manipulation (including manipulating him). If he doesn’t seem the same person he was when he wrote his book, he probably isn’t. Not just for the way the presidency changes everyone who holds it, but he is probably more alone, and has made himself more alone, than he ever bargained for.

I guess I am starting off as not really keen on either of the gentlemen. Yet I will try to analyze and critique their works on what is written, and not extrapolate too much. I predict, however, that this post may be the shortest one on this from the Windbag! :)