Although I guess "Somebody really should slap Glenn Reynolds with his dick" sounds like the Insty-dick would be used for the slapping. Stupid antecedent ambiguities.
2 -- if a gender-specific pronoun were used in the sentence as currently constructed, there would be confusion over whose dick was being referred to. This is more an argument for restructuring the sentence than for using the gender-neutral pronoun imo.
5: Wouldn't slapping him (in the face, presumably) with his own dick hurt him more? (Leaving aside the possibility that he, too, has a massive hand-stretched penis?)
The line Matt refers to: "Yes, the more damaging critique of Bush is that he hasn't pressed the war hard enough -- against Iran, Syria, and the terrorist supporters in Saudi Arabia -- not that he should have done less."
If only Bush had simply deployed more of his Infinitely Large Army, things would have been so much better. Or, rather, if only feckless Democrats + Ward Churchill hadn't prevented the deployment of more of the Infinitely Large Army, things would have been so much bettefr.
The US, which hasn't gone through the same kind of catastrophic post-imperial decline and subsequent period of self-assessment that most of the major European powers have, seems prone to quasi-delusional beliefs about its own omnipotence and goodness. That applies just as much on the left as it does on the right.
Following the invasion of Iraq I read countless hand-wringing articles by US liberals featuring 'how can we live up to our status as a shining beacon of truth and light to the world after this' or 'with our enormous power comes enormous responsibility' type rhetoric. Some of the writers using that rhetoric were writers I otherwise admire. That rhetoric is just as in love with America's supposed power and 'goodness' as any right-wing rhetoric. It just takes a less obviously crazed form.
Reynolds and his ilk are just expressing a particularly pernicious and malevolent form of that delusion.
16 -- which post was that? I am remembering one that ended "In lieu of flowers, please send a coherent exit strategy" but don't think that is what you're referrring to.
I hear you Matt. At the time I kept thinking that I should finally accept all the evidence of the Reagan years (or the Polk years, for that matter) on up to now and just admit that we're bastards just like everyone else. Still, all that idealistic BS contains worthy ideals to aspire to, and I'd hate to give that up.
It proposed that we all sneak out of Iraq on ships disguised as banana boats, making wiggly-finger motions to support our claim that Iraq had just been having a really weird dream.
I think there will be one more war -- against Iraq. I reach this conclusion by the normally infallible method of studying the leaders in the Daily Telegraph.
They may tell you nothing about what it happening in the world, but they do tell you what the Administration would like its British subjects to believe, in this case that Iran is "A threat not to Iraq and Israel but to American itself."
Perhaps I'm being myopic again, but I just can't imagine that a war against Iran is in the offing. We lack the troops and given the public souring on Iraq, it would be wildly unpopular.
I've been working under the assumption that all the blustering about Iran is just an attempt to distract from the disaster in Iraq long enough to make it through the midterm elections.
We've still got an air force -- God knows why we would, but it would certainly be possible for us to bomb the crap out of Iran. I don't feel comfortable relying on the idea that it won't go anywhere because we don't have the military for it.
That rhetoric is just as in love with America's supposed power and 'goodness' as any right-wing rhetoric.
And yet, people in your neighborhood, Matt, were quite prone to it during the Clinton years. He could do almost no wrong, and by extension, neither could America. There were semi-serious discussions about trying to get Clinton to be the next Chancellor of the University.
A war against Iran would be a war against a state. A state has formations, facilities, equipment. We would use a lot of air power against those. This is our sharpest and most characteristic weapon, and right now it's going unused. A state such as North Vietnam could survive for years under bombing because of the restrictions imposed on it, for fear of escalation and because the Russians and Chinese guaranteed the independence and survival of that state. Iran has no such protection. No, we do not have ground forces, but an Iranian response would require dispersion, decentralization, preparation for small scale/guerilla resistance. Their facilities, and pride, would take a beating. So would whatever's left of our reputation.
it would certainly be possible for us to bomb the crap out of Iran
Remember how we "waged war" in Serbia with airmen stationed in Knob Noster, Missouri, who flew out to bomb hell out of their targets and got home in time to watch baseball on tv? Also, cruise missiles.
I don't see why economic aid and bombing are always seen in opposition. Think of the generations that will be able to make a little money on the side collecting scrap metal, like the middle-aged man in Belgium who gives tours of World I battlefields did when he was a kid.
Right, but the Serbian campaign had a specific goal: to get the Serbs to retreat back out of the Muslim and Croat areas. What would the goal be in bombing Iran? To show we don't like them? We certainly won't topple the government that way, which I assume is their ultimate mission, and our intelligence on Iran is bound to be even worse than it was on Iraq, so I have serious doubts about the efficacy of taking out any nuclear program (but I am not a military planner or intelligence analyst, so grains of salt all the way around).
Every military planner has to suspect that southern Iraq would explode. We might even see economic sanctions levelled against the US by Europe and China; at least, I would hope so. We would have earned them fair and square.
Granted, this administration is really, really terrible at strategizing anything other than domestic elections and there's no way anybody can guarantee they won't do something stupid and counter-productive, but this just seems completely insane.
29: Perhaps I'm being myopic again, but I just can't imagine that a war against Iran is in the offing. We lack the troops and given the public souring on Iraq, it would be wildly unpopular.
Which would give serious pause to a government with a lick of sense or sanity. But how can anyone still imagine that the Bush White House possesses either quality?
Oh, yes, bombing has its well-known fiscal bright side:
But some think our attitude Should be one of gratitude, Like the widows and cripples in old London town Who owe their large pensions to Wernher von Braun.
Well, you answered this yourself—to take out their nuclear facilities in our patented, casualty-free way. Will it work? Well, the smart money's on "no", but that's the beauty of the present foreign policy—options traders can win big bucks by putting their smart money on bad outcomes, while backing the administration that will prevent their windfall profits from being taxed. Wins for everyone!
I'm like the random guy at the party who wanders up, makes out-of-context weird jokes, and wanders away while everyone raises their eyebrows and looks at each other silently.
If you guys want to become successful bloggers you need to recruit better guests during your hiati. Might I suggest the guy who runs the awesome Washington Monthly blog?
Blog of our fathers, known of old, Chief of the Fightin' Keyboarders, Whose "Heh. Indeed" with us is bold As a General's marching orders— Old Instyposts! Be with us yet, Lest we forget—lest we forget!
And anyway, it’s always, “Blame the leprechauns!” isn’t it, when there’s some trouble. Nobody ever points the finger at the fairies or brownies, oh no, and look at the naiads simpering innocently in the corner, nobody ever thinks to make them turn their pockets out, do they.
I went to the World Financial Center today to pick up my anti-strep throat antibiotics. Half the people there were dumbass-fratboy-I-Banker-Chets getting their St. Patrick's Day drinking started at lunch and the other half of the people there were police officers in very serious pseudo-military garb with semi-automatic rifles I assume providing increased police presence due to the third anniversary of the Iraq war. I concluded that (1) I weep that these are the hands in which we trust our financial markets and (2) I am a horrible person for fantasizing about all of the ways the combination of drunken Chets + overarmed NYPD officers could end badly.
Somebody really should slap Glenn Reynolds with their dick.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 8:23 AM
Do you really need a gender neutral pronoun there?
Posted by Anthony | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 8:26 AM
Breathtaking amount of wish-fulfillment and projection. This was clearly much more important to him than any kind of facts on the ground.
The locus classicus about how we intellectuals are all too likely to think like this is Orwell's essay "Notes on Nationalism."
Posted by John Tingley | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 8:27 AM
Actually, I think a strap-on would work fine. Put a little lead in it.
Posted by John Tingley | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 8:28 AM
Although I guess "Somebody really should slap Glenn Reynolds with his dick" sounds like the Insty-dick would be used for the slapping. Stupid antecedent ambiguities.
Posted by Anthony | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 8:30 AM
2 -- if a gender-specific pronoun were used in the sentence as currently constructed, there would be confusion over whose dick was being referred to. This is more an argument for restructuring the sentence than for using the gender-neutral pronoun imo.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 8:31 AM
5: Wouldn't slapping him (in the face, presumably) with his own dick hurt him more? (Leaving aside the possibility that he, too, has a massive hand-stretched penis?)
Posted by Matthew Harvey | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 8:31 AM
that's to say, "What you said."
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 8:32 AM
Insty-dick pwned.
Posted by Anthony | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 8:32 AM
he, too, has a massive hand-stretched penis
His writing weighs pretty heavily against that possibility. So much compensation crammed into one blog.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 8:35 AM
Schwack.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 8:35 AM
Insty, today, is saying that the problem was that we didn't invade enough countries.
Maybe Jeff Goldstein would step in? If he can find it.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 8:42 AM
The line Matt refers to: "Yes, the more damaging critique of Bush is that he hasn't pressed the war hard enough -- against Iran, Syria, and the terrorist supporters in Saudi Arabia -- not that he should have done less."
If only Bush had simply deployed more of his Infinitely Large Army, things would have been so much better. Or, rather, if only feckless Democrats + Ward Churchill hadn't prevented the deployment of more of the Infinitely Large Army, things would have been so much bettefr.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 8:55 AM
What sort of fantasy land do these guys live in and, more importantly, how much cough syrup would I have to drink to get a glimpse of it?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 8:59 AM
Relatedly, Fafblog!'s 3-year anniversary is just around the corner.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 9:00 AM
Fafblog's Iraq exit strategy may be the best thing I've ever read.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 9:12 AM
re: 14 and 'fantasy land'.
The US, which hasn't gone through the same kind of catastrophic post-imperial decline and subsequent period of self-assessment that most of the major European powers have, seems prone to quasi-delusional beliefs about its own omnipotence and goodness. That applies just as much on the left as it does on the right.
Following the invasion of Iraq I read countless hand-wringing articles by US liberals featuring 'how can we live up to our status as a shining beacon of truth and light to the world after this' or 'with our enormous power comes enormous responsibility' type rhetoric. Some of the writers using that rhetoric were writers I otherwise admire. That rhetoric is just as in love with America's supposed power and 'goodness' as any right-wing rhetoric. It just takes a less obviously crazed form.
Reynolds and his ilk are just expressing a particularly pernicious and malevolent form of that delusion.
Posted by Matt McGrattan | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 9:13 AM
16 -- which post was that? I am remembering one that ended "In lieu of flowers, please send a coherent exit strategy" but don't think that is what you're referrring to.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 9:25 AM
I hear you Matt. At the time I kept thinking that I should finally accept all the evidence of the Reagan years (or the Polk years, for that matter) on up to now and just admit that we're bastards just like everyone else. Still, all that idealistic BS contains worthy ideals to aspire to, and I'd hate to give that up.
Posted by Mo MacArbie | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 9:38 AM
It proposed that we all sneak out of Iraq on ships disguised as banana boats, making wiggly-finger motions to support our claim that Iraq had just been having a really weird dream.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 9:39 AM
How To Get Out Of Iraq: Fafnir
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 9:42 AM
That's it, but you got back-pocket lint all over it.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 9:45 AM
I think there will be one more war -- against Iraq. I reach this conclusion by the normally infallible method of studying the leaders in the Daily Telegraph.
They may tell you nothing about what it happening in the world, but they do tell you what the Administration would like its British subjects to believe, in this case that Iran is "A threat not to Iraq and Israel but to American itself."
Coming up next, 45 Minutes ....
Posted by Andrew Brown | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 10:15 AM
In the first sentence, q s/b n?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 10:21 AM
I assume.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 10:22 AM
I believe this article speaks directly to 17.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 10:23 AM
The best part of the fafblog post is "for authenticity."
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 10:25 AM
The best part of the fafblog post is "for authenticity."
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 10:25 AM
Perhaps I'm being myopic again, but I just can't imagine that a war against Iran is in the offing. We lack the troops and given the public souring on Iraq, it would be wildly unpopular.
I've been working under the assumption that all the blustering about Iran is just an attempt to distract from the disaster in Iraq long enough to make it through the midterm elections.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 10:26 AM
We've still got an air force -- God knows why we would, but it would certainly be possible for us to bomb the crap out of Iran. I don't feel comfortable relying on the idea that it won't go anywhere because we don't have the military for it.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 10:28 AM
That rhetoric is just as in love with America's supposed power and 'goodness' as any right-wing rhetoric.
And yet, people in your neighborhood, Matt, were quite prone to it during the Clinton years. He could do almost no wrong, and by extension, neither could America. There were semi-serious discussions about trying to get Clinton to be the next Chancellor of the University.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 10:30 AM
A war against Iran would be a war against a state. A state has formations, facilities, equipment. We would use a lot of air power against those. This is our sharpest and most characteristic weapon, and right now it's going unused. A state such as North Vietnam could survive for years under bombing because of the restrictions imposed on it, for fear of escalation and because the Russians and Chinese guaranteed the independence and survival of that state. Iran has no such protection. No, we do not have ground forces, but an Iranian response would require dispersion, decentralization, preparation for small scale/guerilla resistance. Their facilities, and pride, would take a beating. So would whatever's left of our reputation.
Posted by John Tingley | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 10:34 AM
it would certainly be possible for us to bomb the crap out of Iran
Remember how we "waged war" in Serbia with airmen stationed in Knob Noster, Missouri, who flew out to bomb hell out of their targets and got home in time to watch baseball on tv? Also, cruise missiles.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 10:35 AM
Well, as long as our reputation's already in the shitter we might as well nuke 'em. "Here's that enriched uranium you ordered. Sign here."
Posted by Mo MacArbie | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 10:37 AM
I don't see why economic aid and bombing are always seen in opposition. Think of the generations that will be able to make a little money on the side collecting scrap metal, like the middle-aged man in Belgium who gives tours of World I battlefields did when he was a kid.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 10:41 AM
Right, but the Serbian campaign had a specific goal: to get the Serbs to retreat back out of the Muslim and Croat areas. What would the goal be in bombing Iran? To show we don't like them? We certainly won't topple the government that way, which I assume is their ultimate mission, and our intelligence on Iran is bound to be even worse than it was on Iraq, so I have serious doubts about the efficacy of taking out any nuclear program (but I am not a military planner or intelligence analyst, so grains of salt all the way around).
Every military planner has to suspect that southern Iraq would explode. We might even see economic sanctions levelled against the US by Europe and China; at least, I would hope so. We would have earned them fair and square.
Granted, this administration is really, really terrible at strategizing anything other than domestic elections and there's no way anybody can guarantee they won't do something stupid and counter-productive, but this just seems completely insane.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 10:43 AM
29: Perhaps I'm being myopic again, but I just can't imagine that a war against Iran is in the offing. We lack the troops and given the public souring on Iraq, it would be wildly unpopular.
Which would give serious pause to a government with a lick of sense or sanity. But how can anyone still imagine that the Bush White House possesses either quality?
Posted by Doctor Slack | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 10:43 AM
Oh, yes, bombing has its well-known fiscal bright side:
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 10:45 AM
Venn the rockets go up who cares vere they go down.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 10:47 AM
What would the goal be in bombing Iran?
Well, you answered this yourself—to take out their nuclear facilities in our patented, casualty-free way. Will it work? Well, the smart money's on "no", but that's the beauty of the present foreign policy—options traders can win big bucks by putting their smart money on bad outcomes, while backing the administration that will prevent their windfall profits from being taxed. Wins for everyone!
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 10:48 AM
Everyone on the trading floor, that is.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 10:49 AM
The non-hiatus hiatus is becoming one of the most venerable unfogged traditions. But beware, this way lies oblivion!
Posted by cw | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 10:56 AM
I'm like the random guy at the party who wanders up, makes out-of-context weird jokes, and wanders away while everyone raises their eyebrows and looks at each other silently.
Wait, don't tell me. I can see your eyebrows.
Posted by cw | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 10:58 AM
If you guys want to become successful bloggers you need to recruit better guests during your hiati. Might I suggest the guy who runs the awesome Washington Monthly blog?
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 10:58 AM
Why would we want some Iranian who posts about pie?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 11:00 AM
Wait, these guys are going to Haiti?
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 11:01 AM
some Iranian
Please: “Persian”. It alliterates, and offends YKW (PBUH).
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 11:01 AM
Some prissy Persian who posts about pie?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 11:04 AM
By George, I think she's got it!
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 11:05 AM
46: Nice job revealing Labs' secret location, dude.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 11:05 AM
Some prissy Persian posting about pie from Port-au-Prince, precisely.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 11:06 AM
Are there Mexicans in Haiti?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 11:07 AM
There are now.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 11:09 AM
A prissy Pueblan of Persian provenance posting prolifically, profusely pontificating, ponderously promoting pie.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 11:11 AM
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 11:17 AM
periodically pro painful punishments
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 11:17 AM
Plight of Persian that posts on pie:
No time for TiVo to be turned back.
Goes none to reset, nor girl nor guy;
The prince of prisses his own fudge must pack.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 11:39 AM
Inspiration, via A White Bear.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 11:40 AM
Unannounced hiatusses tend to last longer. I think this is a corollary to Kotsko's first law.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 11:46 AM
Perhaps we need another hiatusblog in which to vacation.
Posted by Mo MacArbie | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 1:00 PM
I can't believe no one has yet noted what else today is.
Posted by T. E. O'Filo | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 1:58 PM
Why?
Posted by ben na gCopaleen | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 2:00 PM
Psst! He's talking about the Irish festival!
Posted by Jeremy O'Sner | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 2:02 PM
Just seems like the sort of thing someone should mention, you know?
Posted by T. E. O'Filo | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 2:03 PM
I almost wore orange today.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 2:05 PM
Sylvia said there was a leprechaun in her school the other day making trouble.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 2:07 PM
They prefer “sprite-Americans”.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 2:14 PM
And anyway, it’s always, “Blame the leprechauns!” isn’t it, when there’s some trouble. Nobody ever points the finger at the fairies or brownies, oh no, and look at the naiads simpering innocently in the corner, nobody ever thinks to make them turn their pockets out, do they.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 2:17 PM
I went to the World Financial Center today to pick up my anti-strep throat antibiotics. Half the people there were dumbass-fratboy-I-Banker-Chets getting their St. Patrick's Day drinking started at lunch and the other half of the people there were police officers in very serious pseudo-military garb with semi-automatic rifles I assume providing increased police presence due to the third anniversary of the Iraq war. I concluded that (1) I weep that these are the hands in which we trust our financial markets and (2) I am a horrible person for fantasizing about all of the ways the combination of drunken Chets + overarmed NYPD officers could end badly.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 2:20 PM
68 -- my understanding was that brownies were strongly implicated in trouble-making.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 2:22 PM
All of the webelos who got kicked out of scouting sure think so.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 2:23 PM
70: Sure, and I bet some of your best friends are leprechauns, too.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 2:23 PM
It's me lucky charms! They're magically delicious!
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 03-17-06 2:26 PM