Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: paul_philp who wrote (85495)	3/24/2003 1:31:11 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

ROFLMAO. Lileks is funnier than Sullivan. “That sort of language may seem extreme, but the feelings are genuine.” How very odd. I don’t associate extremity of language with insincerity - in fact the more moonbatty the language, the more I think the speaker’s very marrow vibrates in sympathy to the idea. But the reporter wanted to flip a particular switch that makes right-thinking people nod sagely: the “passionate idealist” cliché. It’s one of the interminable resonances of the class of ‘68, an echo that pings forever around their dusty skulls: passion and conviction are the hallmarks of the anti-establishment conscience, its most potent source of moral authority. Nevermind the specifics; never mind that a fellow might passionately, sincerely believe that Bush gets transfusions from cloned Jewish patriarchs from the 7th century. If it’s not true in the literal sense, his passion surely demonstrates how the idea is a metaphorical certainty for millions Boy does it. I took a nap this afternoon with the BBC on the radio. I fell asleep to the untrammelled ranting of an antiwar student in California - incoherent, but boy was it sincere! - and woke up to the untramelled ranting of an antiwar student in Amman. In between, of course, they let on spokesmen from Washington. Briefly, and with suitable "distance". Meaning the rational spokesman from Washington is always treated with more skepticism than the lunatic ranter from whereever. This is exactly how they have always covered the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, btw. Overview at the top of the ahhr: Heaviest fighting of the woh, and the Arab world is rallying to Iraqi cause. (The audio backing up the latter assertion is from the Iraqi foreign minister. Surely I misheard this; surely they said that “Iraqis insist that the Arab world is rallying." I must have suffered Temporary Yank-Centric Deafness, but maybe not; the Beeb runs more Iraqi responses than any other network. While driving around on Saturday, the Beeb ran a clip from a Brit spokesman describing a battle, then ran the Iraqi blabberjaw insisting that Iraqi forces were still engaged in battle, killing the enemy, and that the Loser Zionist Rumsfeld tongue should be accursed and struck with shoes, and we should all hope that monkeys defecate in his moustache, etc. Then came a guest from Warshington, and the presenter said “so who should we believe, then?” A charitable listener would ascribe the brief, stunned pause that followed to the natural lapse in transatlantic communications.)

To: paul_philp who wrote (85495)	3/24/2003 2:43:16 AM
From: XBrit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

So what was added to your message by the insulting parody of a Southern English accent? I assume you're happy we're out there killing us some rag-heads, and perhaps we can go get us some chinky-chonks up in North Korea later.