July 26, 2007 10:31
Epithets I Have Known
Some epithets are really quite brilliant: wanker, for example, with its intimations of onanistic futility, is one of the best. (But then, the Brits, who invented the term, are so much more elegant than we are when it comes to the creative use of the mother tongue.)
Others, involving defecation and copulation, can be effective and satisfying--as when Libby, one of my characters in Primary Colors, calls someone a "wet turd of a human fart." More often, though, they're just crude and ineffective.
The weirdest class of epithets are those intended to transform positive qualities into ironic deficits. They almost never work, except to turn their purveyors into wankers--that is, poseurs afflicted by onanistic futility. I can cite three examples of this phenomenon, directed at me in the past:
Back in 1993, the Hillaristas working on the Clinton Health Care plan called me, and others like me, incrementalists because we didn't support their employer mandate-style plan. (I supported some version of an individual mandate or voucher system, as I still do, and I remember Ira Magaziner accusing me of being the exact opposite of an incrementalist, "How is what you support different from a single payer system?" Well, it depends on the implementation...and, remind me, what's so wrong with a non-socialized single-payer system anyway?)
Then, in 2002, Bill Kristol asked me, "When did you become such a damn realist?" because I raised these sorts of warnings about going to war in Iraq. He was, of course, turning the realpolitik beliefs of the Bush 41 foreign policy into an epithet. Didn't work out so well for Bill and the neoconservatives.
And now, among certain precincts in the blogosphere--those prohibitively clever sorts who opine daily and endlessly about journalism without doing any reporting (or much thinking) about it--a new epithet: serious. This is meant to convey disdain for those of us who grant undue credibility to people in positions of authority or people of moderate political views. The critics have a point: There is no credible moderate position on issues like torture. And those people in positions of authority who gave Bush the benefit of the doubt on the war in Iraq--including my singular and momentary lapse on Meet the Press--failed the test of being truly serious. But, all things considered, I'm not ready to surrender that very valuable word to the cynics and will continue to use "serious" as I always have, unironically. Usually.
To my mind, being a "serious person" means the following: you study the facts on the ground, you study the history, you take into account opinions on all sides--not just your side--and then you come to a conclusion. Essentially, that's what I try to do, and also the people I admire across the political spectrum (including many who reside in the blogosphere). I don't always succeed, of course. Sometimes, instant opinions offered on TV shows (see above), can seem deeply unserious and ill-considered the moment they escape one's lips. And various serious people I know have momentary or long-term lapses, sometimes very serious ones, on this issue or that. I can disagree with someone profoundly--as with John McCain on Iraq--and still value their opinions on other issues (immigration, fiscal responsibility and so forth).
So, for the record, I embrace the epithet: I am a serious incremental realist.
Reader Comments
Posted by Jake Gittes
July 26, 2007
And a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would be unserious. Let's give it 6 more months.
Posted by p_lukasiak
July 26, 2007
Come on Joe. You only use the word "serious" to describe the positions of people who agree with you -- or occasionally, to the right of you.
You consistently describe progressive positions as "unserious", "dangerous", "irresponsible" etc.... UNTIL IT TURNS OUT WE'VE BEEN RIGHT ALL ALONG, and your "serious" friends finally agree with us.
You're not a serious person Joe. You are "serious" in quotes -- designating the purveyors of Beltway cocktail circuit conventional wisdom and GOP talking points. Those are the people you consider "serious" regardless of HOW CONSISTENTLY WRONG THEY'VE BEEN.
Posted by William
July 26, 2007
Joe,
When someone calls you a "very serious person", it isn't some Karl Rove-esque strategy to turn a positive trait into a negative one. Rather, it means that someone is accusing you of putting on airs, operating under false pretenses.
You almost get it here: "This is meant to convey disdain for those of us who grant undue credibility to people in positions of authority or people of moderate political views."
...But let's go further. The "serious" person fetishizes the mainstream, and demonizes anything deemed too radical. You try so hard to sound objective, to speak for the supposedly vast and unrepresented moderates of the country...you try so hard, you come off sounding comical. Hence,"very serious person."
Posted by p_lukasiak
July 26, 2007
"Hey Joe, have you bothered to read the 52 page report from the House Judiciary Committee laying out its case for its contempt of congress citation against Miers and Bolton?
Have you read the 68 page history of "Congress' Contempt Power" recently released by the Congressional Research Service, explaining the "Law, History, Practice, and Procedure" of Congress's contempt power?
Because this is the kind of stuff SERIOUS people read, rather than the op-ed pages of the Post and the blather at Politico and Slate.
SERIOUS people go to original sources to find out the facts. SERIOUS people read the 1998 UNSCOM report, the reports of the UNMOVIC inspectors, and the foreign press before we went to war in Iraq. SERIOUS people who were SERIOUSLY OPPOSED to the Iraq war would never have made the "slip" you did on Meet the Press --- because if your were SERIOUSLY opposed, you would have pointed out that Friedman was FULL OF CRAP, rather than agreeing with him.
Posted by Terrapin
July 26, 2007
Joe - Outstanding post. I am glad to see that you are not only aware about our misgivings but also have put some thought to the use of the term. I do not necessarily agree with everything you said but it furthers my desire for this blog to be a discussion instead of a bulletin board.
So here is my main gripe stated as succinctly as possible: The reason I deride the use of 'serious' is because my views have een dismissed as 'unserious' simply because I arrived at them sooner than most people.
I spent sufficient time studying the facts on the ground, I am an avid student of history, I take into account opinions on all sides--not just my own side--and then I come to a conclusion. Am I always right? No. But my process is the point.
I think that this sums up pretty well the frustrations of the Progressive blogosphere. What more do we need to do to become 'serious' and listened to?
Here is a 'for instance': You and I disagree on the usefullness of the Dems strategy to end the US involvement in Iraq. But we do not have to disagree to the point where you misrepresent my suggestion (and that of every major Dem candidate) as 'precipitous withdrawal'. So let us try to take each other seriously and see where things go from there.
Again, thanks for reading and responding to the comments.
Posted by Brautigan
July 26, 2007
I really enjoy your posts where you directly address your critics in the blogosphere. I mean that seriously. In the serious sense of the word seriously.
Un-ironically, even.
It's why I keep coming back to the this blog. If you want "those prohibitively clever sorts who opine daily and endlessly about journalism without doing any reporting" to be better informed, then keep doing this, and we'll get a serious dialog going. And, even when it's not as civil as you might hope, we'll all learn a thing or two.
Posted by Jim
July 26, 2007
As I said yesterday: I'd like you to seriously address why you had that "singular and momentary lapse" on the TeeVee.
Was it, as I suspect, because at the age of (I'm guessing) fifty-something, you succumbed to peer pressure from Russert and Friedman?
Posted by TomT
July 26, 2007
I like this post a lot. Thanks for engaging the blogosphere and doing so in a thoughtful way.
Posted by mikeg
July 26, 2007
Joe, can we compromise and call you a "very serious wet turd of a human fart"? Everybody wins! :)
I think that the attempt to weaponize the word "serious" is an act of turnabout. The war's early opposers were routinely attacked as unserious, frivolous, knee-jerk pacifists. "Serious" equalled "war". And that was genuinely infuriating. And then later, "serious" equalled (and still equals) "any position held by moderate Republicans". You wrote a post a few days ago basically arguing that Democrats will not be deemed serious unless and until they legislate to the satisfaction of a tiny group of centrist Republicans. It is that sort of view that is being satirized.
Posted by Florida
July 26, 2007
The serious thinkers of the Beltway crowd have been having lapses in reason for an extremely long time.
Posted by TomT
July 26, 2007
"To my mind, being a "serious person" means the following: you study the facts on the ground, you study the history, you take into account opinions on all sides--not just your side--and then you come to a conclusion."
Joe, that's a reasonable definition. The trouble is you're too likely to apply it to White House hacks. Would you admit that, at least? That if that really is your definition of "serious", then almost no one in the White House is serious? And that you've been wrong for years to describe them as such?
I think the trouble is this: you and your cohort too usually use serious to mean "well-established Washington person who may or may not have any clue what he's talking about." Paul Wolfowitz with his sweet-dates-and-flowers predictions about the war is thus "serious" while Barack Obama, who nailed the war perfectly while living off in fly-over country as an obscure state senator is not.
You'll agree that's troubling, no?
Posted by Jury Glad
July 26, 2007
I think lots of people already understand that the only institution who stands to benefit from the anti-terror hysteria and the war itself is the mighty US government! Killing hostages, making the rest of the world disturbed, destibilizing the situation in the Persian Gulf justificates US troop presence in this region, keeps the money and the war going, soldiers dying for nothing. Did you notice how well Mr Bin Laden pops up just when it is necessary to keep the nation's spirit about the war? Did you notice how many terrorist attacks suddenly become prevented at the right time? Who needs this all? As old latin saying goes: "Cui bono?" - "Who benefits"
Posted by Andy from Maine
July 26, 2007
Joe, I've thought of a few of epithets. Columnist or Pundit or unnamed adminstration source.
I appreciate your post, and your efforts to interface with the commenters here. (they know who they are)
To P_Lukasiak: You haven't mentioned the epithets that strikes fear and anguish into the Time staff: Journalists and Journalism.
They pretend that they are, want their work to be recognized as journalism, but are not intellectually curious or have the work ethic to be journalists. Also if they aspired to that profession, they'd likely be unemployed. they have such a great gig at Time.com.
Posted by Joe Klein's conscience
July 26, 2007
Joe,
While I think you somewhat grasp the whole serious thing, I don't think you truly get it. It has nothing to do with being moderate in your political views. It has everything to do with being wrong so often that if your magazine or newspaper had any credibility, they would have fired a lot of people a long time ago. We can start with your boy Bill "William the Bloody" Kristol. The NRO crowd. Michael Gordon. Fred Hiatt and most of the WaPo. Faux Noise Channel. I could go on, but you get my point. The media in this country have fallen down on the job. They care more about access and the cocktail weenie circuit then doing there job. You are supposed to hold government accountable and you and your brethern have not done so.
Posted by sean samis
July 26, 2007
I like posts like these; it's reassuring to know there's so little going on today that one must come up with triffles like this to write about.
Flatulent crap.
sean s.
Posted by Enceladus
July 26, 2007
I take it that Mr. Klein is smarting from getting thoroughly schooled once again by the "prohibitively clever" Glenn Greenwald today.
And while everyone is at it, check out the brilliantly "serious" "reporting" that his pal Gail Collins offers up in today's NYTimes.
But of course, if you don't like it, it means that you haven't thought about it seriously enough.
Posted by Jim
July 26, 2007
**those prohibitively clever sorts who opine daily and endlessly about journalism without doing any reporting (or much thinking) about it**
So you make no distinction between journalism and opining? I do. I regard people like Dana Priest and Charlie Savage and Walter Pincus as journalists. I regard people like Joe Klein, Bob Novak and David Broder as pundits. I would say that appearing on one of Tweety's Blowhard Chucklefests, if you blowhardily chuckle along, disqualifies one as a journalist, and demotes you to journamalist.
Just one further note on that distinction: I know Broder-fetishists love to point out that the old man rings doorbells before formulating his opinions. As I've said before, I'm not impressed. He seeks out low-information voters who tell him that they want politicians in Washington to stop playing politics and "get things done". The sage of the Just Milieu then declares that this means, whatever the facts may be, whatever the problem is, Blessed Bipartisanship: splitting the difference between Mitch McConnell and Dianne Feinstein, submitting that pablum to Joe Lieberman and John McCain for approval, and then joining hands to dance in a circle around a Rose Garden signing ceremony (assuming, which is very un-serious, that the sixty year old spoiled child in the White House will sign anything that is not exactly what he wants). As Chris Mathews pointed out the other night (yeah, yeah, I know... Blind pig, acorn, broken clock, etc), the problem in Washington, from Iraq to torture the national debt, is not too little comity (how do you spell that again, Joe), but too much.
Posted by Florida
July 26, 2007
And by the way, Joe, what's up with this sentence: "This is meant to convey disdain for those of us who grant undue credibility to people in positions of authority or people of moderate political views."
Look at some of the people who've been given positions of "authority" amongst the Beltway crowd and tell me their qualifications for being taken seriously on anything? Bill Kristol? Kate O'Beirne? Charles Krauthammer? David Brooks? Dick Cheney? Tony Snow? Fred Hiatt? Richard Cohen?
The list goes on and on of folks who continue to be considered "authorities" or "serious" people among the Beltway scene, yet all of these people prove themselves wrong, over and over again.
Sorry, pal. I'm a seller.
Posted by Scott S
July 26, 2007
Put simply: its not the word "serious" that subjects you to ridicule. It's upon whom you bestow the mantle of "serious" that generates controversy. See Glen Greenwald's dissection of that process in his post today at Salon.
Joe Lieberman couching his support for Israel, and probably neoconservatism as a whole, in his belief that Jews are God's Special Tribe, isn't a very "serious" foreign policy rationale.
Posted by Terrapin
July 26, 2007
Jim - You wrote: "As I said yesterday: I'd like you to seriously address why you had that "singular and momentary lapse" on the TeeVee."
He has written about it in the past and has admitted it was a lapse.
I remember watching that program when it initially aired. I do not want to be labelled a Klein-apologist but it was pretty clear that he was being hounded from all sides, including the host, and that he eventually wavered. The show was coming to an end and Russert was badgering him to say something and he said it. Again, I am not trying to apologize for him - he has already done that for himself. I am hoping that we can move on from it.
mikeg - This is great: "I think that the attempt to weaponize the word "serious" is an act of turnabout. The war's early opposers were routinely attacked as unserious, frivolous, knee-jerk pacifists. "Serious" equalled "war". And that was genuinely infuriating. And then later, "serious" equalled (and still equals) "any position held by moderate Republicans". You wrote a post a few days ago basically arguing that Democrats will not be deemed serious unless and until they legislate to the satisfaction of a tiny group of centrist Republicans. It is that sort of view that is being satirized."
I hope Joe reads it twice.
Posted by slutty jewish girl
July 26, 2007
Joe --
I'll take you seriously on the day you apologize for having written Primary Colors under the craven alias Anonymous (still the most heinous personal and political betrayal since Judas). Or when you apologize for that NYMagazine cover story in which you screamed hysterically about how the release of Spike Lee's "Do the Right Thing" was going to incite race riots.
Until then, you're not a serious person -- you're a sad joke.
Sorry.
Posted by Dean Alper
July 26, 2007
Glenn Greenwald
Thursday July 26, 2007 07:02 EST
The mainstream, sane, serious Joe Lieberman
(updated below)
One of the favorite tactics of super-sophisticated Beltway media insiders is to band together and point to anyone who expresses views outside of their narrow orthodoxies and laugh at what crazy and unserious "wackos" they are --- in contrast to the very serious-minded, sane and insightful Beltway elite. The current roster of crazy losers includes Mike Gravel and Ron Paul -- the ones opposed to the war in Iraq and to American military domination around the world. They are insane lunatics, total losers, not fit even to be heard in public discourse among the Serious.
Thus, we are treated to an endless stream of snide little insults from the likes of Eve Fairbanks and Joe Klein scoffing at these "lunatics." And, as we all know, in 2004 Howard Dean was completely crazy -- a total wacko -- and Al Gore is vaguely insane, too.
By contrast, the pundits of The New Republic and Time who cheered on George Bush's invasion of Iraq and who work for Marty Peretz and who defend George Bush's lawbreaking and who spent years treating Dick Cheney like royalty and who carefully ponder with Great Angst whether we should start a new war with Iran are the deeply serious, very sane, mainstream thinkers who can banish the nerdy anti-war outcasts to the "lunatic fringes."
Joe Lieberman is, of course, one of the very serious -- deeply, deeply serious -- sane and mainstream political figures. Agree or disagree, he is a real serious and thoughtful and mainstream political thinker.
Last week, as Philip Weiss noted yesterday, Lieberman was the honored guest of evangelical Minister John Hagee and the group he leads, Christians United for Israel. As the Press Release distributed by Very Serious Moderate Lieberman aide Marshall Whittman demonstrates, Lieberman gave a speech there which Weiss, with understatement, calls "shocking." More on that in a moment.
* * * * * *
Lieberman's political comrade, Rev. Hagee, is at once both an extraordinary figure and a common one. He is an evangelical minister who, as an amazing interview he gave late last year to NPR's Terry Gross reflects, believes that "Rapture" -- whereby all Christians literally disappear from earth upon the return of Christ, leaving all non-believers to suffer on Earth -- is "imminent."
Rev. Hagee believes that before Christ returns, the Bible contains prophecies a series of Middle East wars against Muslims. And he also believes that God has placed an absolute bar on the giving away of any Israeli land whatsoever, and thus categorically condemns plans such as the "road map" and the Gaza withdrawal as blasphemies against God. In the Gross interview, the following exchange occurred, beginning with a clip from one of Hagee's sermons:
Hagee sermon: "For those of you in Washington, Jerusalem is not up for negotiation at any time, for any reason, in the future, no matter what your raod map calls for. There are still people in this nation who believes the Bible takes precedence over Washington, DC."
TG: Pastor Hagee, if you believe that the Bible takes precedence over Washington - I would assume you think the Bible takes precedence over the Israeli Government as well --
If you use the Bible as the basis for policy, is there any room for compromise? And if you use the bible as the basis for policy, should Muslims use the Koran as the basis for their policy, and then again, what possible basis is there for compromise at that point?
JH: There is really no room for compromise between radical Islam --
TG: I'm not talking about radical Islam. I'm just talking about Islam in general.
JH: Well Islam in general - those who live by the Koran have a scriptural mandate to kill Christians and Jews.
So we can never negotiate with "radical Islam," and by "radical Islam," we mean "all Muslims," because all Muslims, by definition, are radical, since they all are instructed to slaughter Jews and Christians, and thus can never be negotiated with.
This exchange also occurred:
TG: I just want to ask you one question, based on one of your sermons, and this is not about Israel -- you said after Hurricane Katrina, that it was an act of God, and you said when you violate God's will long enough, the judgment of God comes to you. Katrina is an act of God for a society that is becoming Sodom and Gomorrah re-born.
Do you still believe that Katrina is punishment from God for a society that is becoming like Sodom and Gomorrah?
JH: All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that.
The newspaper carried the story in our local area, that was not carried nationally, that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it would was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other gay pride parades.
So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the Day of Judgment, and I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.
So that is John Hagee (who, just by the way, had a private meeting late last year with neocon and convicted felon Elliot Abrams, who also happens to be the White House's Middle East Policy Director, and afterwards, Hagee pronounced that they were in agreement on issues of the Middle East and Israel. Just by the way).
* * * * * *
Now, here is just a part of what the sane, serious, moderate, mainstream Joe Lieberman said when addressing Rev. Hagee's group two weeks ago:
Thank you for that kind introduction and that warm welcome. May I in turn greet you with the ancient words of welcome offered to pilgrims in Jerusalem -- "Bruchim Habaim B'Shem Hashem" -- blessed be those who come in the name of the Lord.
That greeting is especially fitting for you because you have come to Washington not just as men or women, Republicans or Democrats, conservatives or liberals. You are here as Christians United for Israel. You represent a powerful force of people of faith in America who have pledged to never forget thee, O Jerusalem. . . .
I begin by thanking your founder, Pastor John Hagee. I would describe Pastor Hagee with the words the Torah uses to describe Moses, he is an "Eesh Elo Kim," a man of God because those words fit him; and, like Moses he has become the leader of a mighty multitude in pursuit of and defense of Israel . . . .
You know his story -- almost sixty years ago, a young John Hagee sat at his family's kitchen table in Channelview, Texas, heard the news about Israel's Declaration of Independence, and saw how moved his family was by it. Since then, he has been devoted to the defense of Israel, and to its vitality. He has done so because Israel's fight is his fight. Israel's values are his values. And Israel's hopes and dreams are his hopes and dreams.
Pastor Hagee, I pray that God will bless you with all that you pray for, and I do so with great confidence because I know what the Lord said to Abraham in Genesis 12:3. If ever there was a man who will be blessed because he has blessed Israel, Pastor Hagee, it is you.
You reject the temptation of moral relativism. You understand that there is a difference between good and evil, between eternal and temporal, between Israel and other nations . . . .
In a literal sense, Christians United for Israel was founded a little more than a year ago, in February 2006. But in a larger sense, it began more than 4,000 years ago with the first words God spoke to Abraham in Genesis 12:1: "Now get thee unto the land that I will show thee, and I will make thee a great nation" . . . .
That was the covenantal promise God repeated to Isaac and Jacob and then to Moses, who, with God's help, delivered the children of Israel out of bondage to Mount Sinai where they received the Ten Commandments -- their statement of national values and purpose -- and then, 40 years later, brought them to the land that was promised to them, to the land of Israel.
This is the long odyssey that has brought us here tonight. By standing with Israel today, each of you has joined that journey and taken up the torch that was lit in God's promise to Abraham 4,000 years ago, and carrying it forward to spread that light.
I believe that Israel's rebirth in 1948 was divinely inspired by God, but I know that it was realized by the men and women here on earth who worked so hard to make it happen. Israel will be sustained by the work of men and women like you here on Earth. And I know you know how truly American is your support of Israel. . . .
If we surrender to the barbarism of suicide bombers and yield the Middle East to fanatics and killers, to Al Qaeda and Iran, then all that our men and women in uniform have fought, and died for, will be lost, we will be left a much less secure and free nation, and our Middle East allies -- including Israel -- will be endangered.
Fortunately, you here tonight know that evil will not prevail if good people act. And I know you will not allow Iran and Al Qaeda to triumph over America and Israel.
Lieberman concluded his speech by describing the story of the Book of Esther which, Lieberman said, is "about the cruel Persian leader who sought to exterminate the Jews." According to Lieberman, Queen Esther was reluctant to try to convince the evil Persian King to spare the Jews, but she was eventually convinced that if the Persian King destroyed the Jews, all would suffer. Nobody would be spared, not even Esther. And she thus stopped him.
Lieberman then told the group that "You are in this time like Joshua and Caleb in their time" and proceeded to explain what he meant by that:
The story told in chapter 13 of the Book of Numbers where Moses selects out leaders of the Israelites -- "men of distinction" -- to explore The Promised Land and report back, and all of them but Joshua, son of Nun and Caleb, son of Yephunneh, bring back a report that is cowardly because it lacks faith. . . .
But Joshua and Caleb disagreed, "We can surely ascend and conquer the land, we can surely do it," because they trusted in the promise God had made to Israel. Of that group, only Joshua and Caleb made it to the Promised Land of Israel.
Dear friends, you Christians United for Israel clearly follow in the footsteps of Joshua and Caleb. Your faith is strong, and so is your confidence. And so great will be your effect.
I thank you and pray that God will bless you and all that you do."
Most of this speaks for itself -- loudly -- but there are a few short observations worth making and questions worth asking:
(1) There is a very sizable portion of our country -- including a critically important part of the GOP base -- that favors endless militarism in the Middle East, encompassing not just Iraq but Iran and many others, for entirely religious and theological (rather than strategic or geopolitical) reasons. Perhaps that might be worth some greater discussion in the media.
(2) Could we at least all agree that it is long past time to dispense with the outrageous taboo which prohibits a discussion of the allegiance to Israel among right-wing neocon warmongers like Joe Lieberman and the influence that it has in their advocacy of endless wars against Israel's enemies such as Iran and Syria? Given that the likes of Joe Lieberman have formed common cause with the likes of John Hagee, and they all explicitly say that God demands that the U.S. defend Israel and wage war against its enemies, isn't it rather impossible to pretend any longer that no such relationship exists?
(3) Is there anyone who can identify the specific views of Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul that are "crazier" and more "unserious" than the views expressed here by John Hagee and Joe Lieberman?
(4) What exactly is the difference between the view of "radical Islam" that God demands that jihad be waged against Islam's enemies and the views expressed here by Hagee and Lieberman? Or the views of Osama bin Laden that God willed Middle Eastern land to Muslims and therefore can never be negotiated and the Lieberman/Hagee view that God willed it to Israel and can never be negotiated even if it means war?
(5) Could someone ask Joe Lieberman what exactly are the differences "between Israel and other nations"?
(6) For all of you throngs of media stars out there who spent much time condemning the Democratic Party for involving itself with such a wild, despicable radical like Michael Moore, do you have anything to say about Joe Lieberman's close association with, and drooling praise for, someone who believes that Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment against the City of New Orleans for its wretched sins?
If it is perfectly permissible for Joe Lieberman to openly associate with someone like John Hagee and keep his membership in the Serious, Sober, Important, Respectable, Sane Mainstream Club, with whom can't he associate himself? Is there ever a way for someone on the Right to remove themselves from respectable, mainstream Seriousness?
UPDATE: Just as I was about to post this -- literally seconds before -- someone e-mailed me this new video from Max Blumenthal which shows the true face of the Christian Zionist movement of Rev. Hagee, the one Lieberman has embraced so enthusiastically. Coincidence?
In the video, which Blumenthal filmed at the convention two weeks ago, Hagee proclaims to cheering throngs, who are waiving Israeli flags:
Therefore it is time for America to embrace the words of Senator Joseph Lieberman and consider a military preemptive strike against Iran to prevent a nuclear holocaust in Israel. . .
Blumenthal notes that of all the speakers at the convention, Lieberman received the "by far the best reception," and showed Lieberman saying this:
I want to take the liberty of describing Pastor Hagee in the words the Torah uses to describe Moses. . . and those words really fit him. Like Moses, he has become the leader of a mighty multitude, even greater than the multitude that Moses led from Egypt to the Promise Land.
Mike Gravel and Ron Paul are total wackos. MoveOn.org and DailyKos is filled with fringe extremists. Iran is led by warmongering religious fanatics. And Tim Russert and Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman are very serious and responsible and wise.
UPDATE II: This is how Serious People talk about other Serious People -- Serious Person Joe Klein said this in February, 2006 about Serious Person Joe Lieberman (h/t Zack): "I could never imagine myself voting against him. But he was profoundly wrong about the most important issue of the past five years [Iraq]." Just think about that for a second.
Klein goes on to criticize Lieberman for failing to express regret and error over Lieberman's support for Bush's invasion of Iraq. But Klein himself supported that invasion, and rather than expressing regret or remorse himself, now falsely claims that he did not (i.e., deceives everyone by claiming he opposed the war). Klein and Bill Kristol are two of the featured columnists in Time Magazine. And, like Lieberman, they are both very very Serious.
Posted by memekiller
July 26, 2007
Well, your description of what you do is exactly what I think you should be doing, though your centrist instincts tend to lead you to knee-jerk liberal bashing to triangulate yourself to the center. We have a term for it: reality-based, referring to the famous quote of a high level Bush official who mocked the "reality-based community".
Reading you since 9/11, I did not get the feeling you were a staunch voice of dissent, but rather, like all pundits, terrified of being lumped in with us and preoccuppied with looking serious and centrist. Objectively looking at the facts, for instance, it is easy to see through McCain and Leiberman.
Here's what it comes down to. Objective does not mean reflexively splitting every baby, advocating devils and slaughtering sacred cows. Fair does not mean instinctively agreeing with those who are wrong and damning those you feel are right. Sometimes, the world isn't perfectly balanced and equivelant, and the things this party is doing is on an order of magnitude different from the violations of the past. And if you are so proud of being a serious, centrist person, perhaps you could complain a bit about constantly being the "liberal" member of these roundtables, rather than triangulating?
Posted by Thinkerton
July 26, 2007
Joe, I know you and Glenn Greenwald have a bit of an ongoing feud, but I like Glenn, and I do think his posts are thoughtful and, er, serious.
Is there a credible moderate position on upholding the Constitution? Progressive (for lack of a better term) bloggers come under fire for being agressively absolute in their opinions. They are regularly mocked by conservatives as being shrill and un-serious. But what is one to do when the foundation of our great country is being shredded? If one stood watching a parent or spouse being murdered or debased, one would not take a moderate position. That is the position many progressives feel they are in. Such people have no interest in considering "both sides" when it comes to the Constitution and the rule of law. As with torture, there is only one position.
I cannot even discuss my horror for the current administration with friends and family. They might agree with me, but to discuss such things is painful to them. People want to laugh this off and go back to their business. This is what it has come to: the new media have conditioned many to think that to take an uncompromising position against what the Bush administration is doing is to be shrill and un-serious. Could there be anything more serious than our Constitution and our country? Why don't more people care? That's what I want to know.
Posted by gil
July 26, 2007
Joe, by your definition of serious, I think you just alienated most of your brethren pundit corps, the folks at the white house and let's not even talk about Fox News.
Posted by Not a Pundit nor a Shill
July 26, 2007
"Joke Line" to the rest of the blogosphere...
Posted by An Outhouse
July 26, 2007
"... you study the facts on the ground, you study the history, you take into account opinions on all sides...and then you come to a" WRONG "conclusion".
And that's the point - all these 'serious' people have been so many times, some wonder why they are considered credible. But you're too much of a wanker to understand.
Posted by anon
July 26, 2007
Oh, dear. I'd like to take this post seriously but, alas, I can't image what it would sound like to hear "Atrios is funny but serious when he says..." or "I used to think Greenwald had it in for me but now I see that he's serious when he attack my misguided positions and it's not personal" or whatever. So, assuming this is a purely defensive post and Joe Klein will continue along without acknowledging his previous work was, yes, a Joke Line, then this is nothing more than some serious wanking. (And, come on, it's Atrios who's been calling you--and rightfully so--a wanker. Implying that he didn't invent the term is silly straw. He said, when he first started to use it on you, that it was a fine British term that might be useful. He was seriously right.)
Posted by fred
July 26, 2007
Your description of "serious" makes sense. The question is whether you consider Peter Beinart or to have been Michael Moore more "serious" about Iraq.
Remember that Beinart has admitted to have done no research, no background reading, and have no special knoweldge of the region, its langauges, its history, or its culture. Beinart, as he has now admitted, acquired his knoweldge by reading the papers and columns written by other people (e.g. Bill Kristol) who also didn't have any particular knowledge.
If that's too hard, then who did you consider more "serious" Peter Beinart or Juan Cole?
Did you think that Scott Ritter was serious?
Posted by Kryptik
July 26, 2007
It's been said before, but it bears repeating:
The reason that people have been using 'serious' as an epithet is because, for the longest time, and even now still in many ways, the people who were proven right time and time again, over and over, were derided and barely given a voice to speak their mind, despite a large number of Americans sharing those exact opinions. Why? Because they were 'unserious'. Anti-war positions even to this day are still characterized as 'unserious', in contrast to the 'serious' suggestions about waitnig 6 more months to see how things are going, then when 6 months have passed, saying 'we're just getting started though, give us 6 more months and you'll see!', ad infinitum.
'Serious' is an epithet because those who were considered to have 'serious' opininos, especially regarding this war, have been shown to be consistantly wrong all the way through, and yet are given more credibilty on the issue by the press then people who have had the whole shameful thing pegged down from the beginning.
Not to mention the way 'serious' has been used to label people who seem to outwardly and unabashedly support flat out insane ideas, like Greenwald points out with Lieberman.
Posted by squid696
July 26, 2007
Thanks, Joe. This was the sort of lazy pitch over the middle of the plate that we love. The commenters here have pretty much said everything that needs to be said about the "serious" thinkers inside the beltway. Let me just add one thing. Can you give us the defense of Bill Kristol as a serious thinker?
Posted by Jim
July 26, 2007
**Again, I am not trying to apologize for him - he has already done that for himself. **
Terrapin: I don't remember an apology. I remember sneering and huffy dismissals of anyone who would point out his self-contradictory history. I only bring it up because Klein is so often dismissive of everyone who disagrees with him, especially to his left, and such a knee-jerk defender of anyone who has what he considers to be the necessary credentials to discuss politics, however flat-out wrong or flat-out looney they are.
Case in point: Klein defended Time's hiring of the disastrously, lethally wrong-on-everything Bill Kristol by saying something about his manners and his smile. Last week, Smiley Bill wrote a column reviving the Dolchstosslegende for Iraq. No less an un-serious DFH than George Will has warned about these kind of "Weimar politics" w/r/t Iraq.
Where is Klein's denunciation of this kind of filth? Klein has, to his credit, called out the mutual parent of Time and CNN on employing the obnoxoius, buffoonish, low-grade clown Glenn Beck. Where is his comparable denunciation of the far more dangerous, far more "Serious", far more despicable Bill Kristol, whose office is, metaphorically speaking, right down the hall? Or is he blinded by the light of that smile?
Posted by memekiller
July 26, 2007
As to your comment that we haven't practiced journalism, I have. So let me tell you about a story that demonstrated to me exactly how broken our profession is. I was doing a story on a global warming denier. As someone who had done an internship working with CO2 back in my astronomy/physics days, I considered myself a fairly scientifically literate person. The story I expected to write would demonstrate how although some scientists might dissent, consensus is more about percentages, etc.
I did what any good, objective reporter does. I interviewed some climate scientists who thought the earth was warming due to the burning of fossil fuels. Then, I started to look for someone who disagreed. My only criteria was that this be someone publishing research in peer-reviewed journals in the field. None of the scientists could name a colleague who didn't think the eart was warming at least in part due to man. So I asked the denier to name a few. Of the four he named, one was a weatherman and another had a "lifelong interest" in climate since his days in the merchant marines. Of the two who actually were scientists, one had actually testified before congress that consensus indeed saw humans changing the climate.
That left Patrick Michaels, whom every named as the premier skeptic, and a member of the Cato Institute. So I called him up, and said people out there were claiming he didn't think human's were warming the Earth, at which point he started to scream, "I never said that! I never said that!"
I discovered later that someone took a random sampling of 1000 journal articles from the past 10 years, and not one questioned anthropogenic warming. Yet, all the news shows and stories I read talked about how controversial this was, how the science was unsettled, but as far as I could tell, researchers were unanimous, something that never occurs in science.
So, I was left with a choice: be objective, and find a bogus scientist to provide tit-for-tat quotes for the entire scientific community, or take the unserious, partisan, opinionated route, and tell my readers exactly what my reporting uncovered.
Sometimes, things are so out of balance that being shrill IS the serious, realistic response.
Posted by Attaturk
July 26, 2007
So, for the record, I embrace the epithet: I am a serious incremental realist.
Joe, it's more practical to go by the pithy and accurate, "Insufferable Windbag"
Posted by res ipsa loquitur
July 26, 2007
Joe writes: "To my mind, being a "serious person" means the following: you study the facts on the ground, you study the history, you take into account opinions on all sides--not just your side--and then you come to a conclusion. Essentially, that's what I try to do..."
And here's The Very Serious Joe on domestic wiretapping without benefit of Constitutionally-mandated warrants:
"People like me who favor this program don't yet know enough about it yet. Those opposed to it know even less -- and certainly less than I do."
I guess the key word in the first quote is "essentially."
res ipsa loquitur
Posted by A Hermit
July 26, 2007
You have to always picture the quotation marks around the word "serious" when used in that kind of context. Its called SARCASM Joe. Look it up.
If you prefer, I could stick to calling you a "pinhead," but that's not as clever and witty as "wet turd of a human fart" so I won't.
By the way, here's Greenwald on more "seriousness" (see, there's that sarcasm again) from your friend Holy Joe. I especially like the second update...
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/26/lieberman_hagee/index.html
"This is how Serious People talk about other Serious People -- Serious Person Joe Klein said this in February, 2006 about Serious Person Joe Lieberman (h/t Zack): "I could never imagine myself voting against him. But he was profoundly wrong about the most important issue of the past five years [Iraq]." Just think about that for a second."
Posted by An Atriot
July 26, 2007
Congrats for being Wanker of the Day, time after time. And don't worry, we're laughing AT you, not WITH you.
Posted by Enceladus
July 26, 2007
Using Mr. Klein as a point of comparison, has anyone ever heard actual good reporters like Dana Priest or Charlie Savage whine and complain about how other people don't have the right to judge them because they don't have their mad reporting skillz?
If you're confident about your reporting, Mr. Klein, then just let it speak for itself.
By contrast, this paternalistic assertion of your own reporting authority just makes you look like an unconfident practitioner who can't brook any criticism whatsoever. To paraphrase Larry David: pret-tay, pret-tayy, pret-tayyyyy lame.
Posted by Snow
July 26, 2007
Serious quote from the very serious Joe Klein:
"People like me who favor this program don't yet know enough about it yet."
Serious Joe Klein supports a program he very seriously admits to not knowing enough about.
"Those opposed to it know even less -- and certainly less than I do."
And then the very serious Joe Klein admits to failing to inform the public all that he knows about the serious program that he seriously endorses.
Seriously?
Posted by A Hermit
July 26, 2007
By the way, is this "...The critics have a point: There is no credible moderate position on issues like torture..." an apology for that tepid 2005 not-really-objecting-to-torture article you referenced in your own defense in an earlier post?
Posted by RoMo
July 26, 2007
Joe's problem is that "being serious" is considered reaching out and seeking accomadation with the so-called “centrist republicans.” As David Brooks calls them, “those thirty senators who are just looking for an excuse to break with the President.” Anything that deters from that tack is considered too fringe or radical.
Here is the problem. Those “thirty senators” are held captive by the far-right of their party. This is the group that drives the agenda for the country (hundreds of millions in Clinton investigations, his impeachment, the stem cell “compromise,” the enabling of a pre-emptive war, the trashing of the Geneva Conventions, the support of an end to checks and balances, support for an Attorney General who consistently is untruthful under oath, the steady erosion of our civil rights, the policies that blindly support Israel (while, ironically, making Israel much more unsafe), the steady drum-beat for war in Iraq, etc. etc.
If those “thirty senators” wanted to break with their partisan ideologues, they have had ample opportunity to do so on a million different occasions. They don’t, thus the litany of disasters mentioned above.
So my definition of the Beltway’s “serious journalism” is people who try to find accommodation with a radical fringe that have never, and will never accept accommodation. Who honestly expects the President to compromise. My definition of “serious” beltway journalism is akin to the definition for insanity.
If one were to apply Joe’s definition, “being a "serious person" means the following: you study the facts on the ground, you study the history, you take into account opinions on all sides--not just your side--and then you come to a conclusion,” wouldn’t they have to see that the actual results of the “serious” reporting don’t follow logical thought. Facts + History need to trump “taking account opinions on all sides.” Facts and History show us what the last seven years have done to our country and our standing in the world, not to mention the disaster it has unleashed in the Middle East.
Posted by trifecta
July 26, 2007
If punditry was being about being "serious" why would Bill Kristol be hired by Time AFTER he was horrifically wrong on just about everything the last few years.
It's not about "serious", it's about being center-right.
Nobody who works along recent hire Bill Kristol needs to puff his chest and talk about being "serious".
Posted by memekiller
July 26, 2007
"By the way, is this '...The critics have a point: There is no credible moderate position on issues like torture...' an apology for that tepid 2005 not-really-objecting-to-torture article you referenced in your own defense in an earlier post?"
I saw it as more of a "on balance, I'd say Abu Ghraib is a minus for a country -- but boy, does Bush love Jesus!" piece. Reasonable people can disagree.
Posted by newt
July 26, 2007
"...and, remind me, what's so wrong with a un-socialized single-payer system anyway?"
That would be the difference between:
The bargaining power of 300 million
vs.
One poor schlub on his own naked in the woods with a broken leg & circling wolves
...Because that's basically about how it works out.
Posted by Jim
July 26, 2007
**Here is the problem. Those “thirty senators” are held captive by the far-right of their party**
Exactly. I'll take it a step further: our country is being held hostage by the abject cowardice of spineless, immoral traitors (Warner, Lugar, Snowe, Specter, Collins, Smith, Voinavich...) who put the best interests (and they're wrong about that) of their party and the ego of a deluded spoiled adolescent before the interests and security of the country (Iraq, GWOT) and the principles of the Constitution (Gonzales, MCA, domestic spying, torture, etc, et unfortunately cetera.
And to Klein, Broder, Cohen, Cokie, Hiatt and the rest, the problem is that Democrats haven't figured out a way to talk these despicable, gutless halfwits in off the ledge of their own choosing.
But I must sound very shrill and unserious by accurately describing these people according to the facts and their own actions. They are, in Serious Language, cautious, thoughtful, unwilling to act precipitously, trying to bridge the gap between loyalty to their party and the oaths they took to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.... oops, there I go gettin' honestly shrill again. I'd never make it as a journamalist. Alas and alack, I shall never know the joy of washing down one of Sally Quinn's shrimp puffs with one of Ben's special Tom'n'Jerrys
Posted by justawriter
July 26, 2007
That article was about Iraq? Could have fooled me. The first half was "Why Al Gore is not taken seriously" and an ending that included "Bill Clinton wasn't too good on foreign policy" for no reason germane to the story that I could see and snuck in the middle were a few passive voice comments implying that maybe, possibly, perhaps we need to ask a few more questions. Frankly, you couldn't be more timorous if you tried. I bet 7 out of 10 readers would think that was an Al Gore hit piece, nothing more.
Joe, show us where you said "this is probably a bad idea that will likely lead to a quagmire and bloodbath" in the lede.
Finally Joe, you left out the most important part of being a serious realist. A truly serious person matches his (or her) predictions with reality and if they don't match, reexamines their analysis to see where it went wrong. Then they identify their prejudices adjust their preconceptions to reality.
Posted by sonny c.
July 26, 2007
Joe, just face it, you could kiss your dear old Mom lovingly on the cheek & SOMEBODY would complain about your technique,etc. Just the age of instant judgment we live in.
Posted by Elvis Elvisberg
July 26, 2007
Thanks for engaging what people are saying about you in the blogosphere.
Any reaction to Greenwald's specific point about Lieberman and Hagee?
As to "serious" being an epithet, there's a link at my handle to a discussion from December of last year.
Cynthia Tucker (who just won a Pulitzer frickin' Prize!) said on Chris Matthews: "I also think that the peacenik wing of the Democratic Party may have learned a lesson from their failures in Connecticut, where Ned Lamont lost in the general election to Joe Lieberman. The simple fact of the matter is, every serious Democrat who was in the Senate at the time, voted for the war--or voted to authorize the president--and Al Gore was one of the few Senate Democrats who voted in 1991 for the first Gulf War."
Bob Graham, Dick Durbin, unserious?
Look, the people who argued against the war were right, and the people who argued for it (like you and me) were wrong. They were unpopular (with the media, though not with the public), but they were not unserious.
There was an effort by the media not to _debate_ arguments against the war, but rather to _stigmatize_ them, by the use of the epithet "unserious."
You give "serious" a bad name.
Posted by Independent
July 26, 2007
Joe,
You're such a smart, wise human being and usually such a superior journalist that I write this with a great deal of trepidation. But you and I (and a lot of other folks) know that incrementalist, realist and serious aren't the worst epithets that have been used against you. Flabbergast us some day and address what you think your real problems might be.
Posted by Anonymous
July 26, 2007
Bob Graham, Dick Durbin, unserious?
Chris Dodd and Robert Byrd also.
I guess the implication from Ms Tucker is that Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold are just nuts.
That's really astounding. I always had a good opinion of Cynthia Tucker
Posted by Joe Klein's Murdered Conscience
July 26, 2007
I have to step in and defend cynthia tucker here. It's probable that she was referring to serious presidential candidates, not all Democrats. It's still an oddly nonsensical thing to say, but she isn't saying only serious democrats voted for the war, just serious presidential candidates who were in the senate at the time. (clinton, edwards)
Posted by bartkid
July 26, 2007
>So, for the record, I embrace the epithet
Mr. Klein,
Funny, you missed concern troll in your list.
And, this from such a serious person who can define but not identify a single non-straw man "left wing extremist".
Posted by greg VA
July 26, 2007
Labelling someone "serious" is a direct result of all the people who were and are considered "unserious" because their views were outside the conventional beltway (pro-war) wisdom. The label "unserious" had nothing to do with their thought process -- it had to do with their conclusions, which turned out to be correct.
So if you want to be taken seriously, a good start would be to acknowledge the "unserious" people who were right from the beginning . . .
Posted by trifecta
July 26, 2007
I agree about "serious" presidential candidates supporting the war.
Why did they support the war? One big reason was so that Joe Klein et al would call them "serious". It becomes a wanking circle.
You are only allowed to be a smidge left of center to pretty far right to be "serious". If you don't obey this rule, you get stories about haircuts. Edwards did vote for the war, but he apologized. "Serious people" are attacking him non stop about his hair style in retaliation. There was a reporter in the Atlantic who said "the media" has decided to get Edwards.
He isn't "serious" now.
This conversation is absolutely ridiculous btw. Our Attorney General just perjured himself in front of congress. We are torturing people, and who gives a darn about who Klein finds serious.
He works with recent hire Bill Kristol remember.
Seriously.
Posted by Elvis Elvisberg
July 26, 2007
Joe Klein's Murdered Conscience, I don't read it that way.
Tucker is talking about Lieberman vs. Lamont in the previous sentence. Edwards is not mentioned in the show's transcript. It is, in fairness to your position, a discussion about Hillary and the 08 election, but they're in the middle of the obligatory bash-Kerry-and-Lamont-and-Democrats-for-unseriousness phase of the discussion.
Lots of people seem to like Tucker; I haven't seen her much, so that quote is the most salient thing about her for me.
Posted by zota
July 26, 2007
>I am a serious incremental realist.
Joe is trolling himself now?
Posted by archie stanson
July 26, 2007
MR. Klein:
I respect all you have done and are doing to help bring the end of the neocon era.
Allow me to apologize for the so called liberals in here who abuse you and do not respect what you do and who you are.
I have the same problem.
I think that maybe we shame them when the posers realize that they are not as good of liberals as we are!
Posted by TomT
July 26, 2007
It's an interesting question, Trifecta: would the media have played up the hair-cut so much if Edwards was going around saying things like "a precipitous withdrawl from Iraq would be a human rights catastrophe"? My guess is they wouldn't.
Posted by Jim
July 26, 2007
**This conversation is absolutely ridiculous btw. Our Attorney General just perjured himself in front of congress. We are torturing people, and who gives a darn about who Klein finds serious.**
Unfortunately, a great many Democratic politicians care a great deal about what people like Klein (and David Broder and his legion of imitators) think. It's no coincidence that Biden is Klein's candidate; Biden bragged not long ago that "the Press is for me!", and cited the endorsements (or praises) of Broder. Mark Shields and (the point where melodrama becomes farce) Margaret Carlson.
Harry Reid finally slapped back at that neo-con nitwit Fred Hiatt, but that took about four years.
Posted by A Little Knowledge
July 26, 2007
Althouse Alert; Althouse Alert. Joe's whining is bringing him dangerously close to boiling bunnies. ... Serious.
Posted by Donald
July 26, 2007
Care to respond to the substance of what Greenwald wrote about Lieberman? You're the one defending this fanatical jerk.
I take it you have nothing sensible to say. What a surprise.
Posted by JJ
July 26, 2007
"those prohibitively clever sorts who opine daily and endlessly about journalism without doing any reporting (or much thinking) about it..."
Ah, you mean Glenn Greewald? It's a good thing he did some thinking about the press's use of the term Al Qaeda (for instance Joe Klein's use of that term in a recent article). Because not many people were thinking about it before Greewald brought it up.
And Greg from VA is right. It's been only the *Unserious* people, dismissed by the beltway, who were right about Iraq, and who've carried the narrative forward in other cases as well, with no help from our supposedly Serious press corps.
And the ironic epithet Very Serious works very well in a lot of cases- for the WaPo editorial board, for instance, which has been Very Seriously a joke:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/015732.php
Posted by monchie b. monchum
July 26, 2007
How come little old unserious me was able to figure out during the runup to the Iraq War that the Bush regime was almost certainly lying about WMDs?
How come little old unserious me was able to figure out during the runup to the Iraq War that the Bush regime was almost certainly being dishhonest with its insinuations that Saddam was behind 9/11?
Maybe it's partly because little old unserious me was able to figure out all by my unserious self during Election 2000 that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were pathological liars. How did little old unserious me figure that out? Well, partly because, in order to justify their proposed tax cuts for the wealthy, they were using almost the same exact dishonest con job routine Republicans used in the 1980s to justify the last set of irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthy...you know, the ones that produced ballooning deficits as far as the eye could see.
I know, I know...New York Times columnist Paul Krugman also figured it out at the time and wrote about it. But despite the fact that he's a Princeton economist who wrote the textbook many college freshman economics students use, Professor Krugman is very definitely not a serious man.
Posted by zota
July 26, 2007
Joe, when you portray your tepid discomfort at the war as vocal opposition, are you serious?
When you said you were against withdrawal from Iraq, were you serious?
When you called the Democrats irresponsible for demanding a withdrawal timeline, were you serious?
When you attacked Congressional oversight as something that only makes the President more stubborn, were you serious?
When you repeatedly insulted the anti-war majority as extremist, radical, dangerous, insecure, intellectually myopic, reactionary, disgraceful, America-hating Jacobins, were you serious?
In short -- are you serious???
Posted by Crust
July 26, 2007
Joe, you're confusing three rather different things:
1. epithets (e.g. "wanker")
2. descriptive labels that represent something the speaker happens to disagree with (e.g. "incrementalist" as applied to you by proponents of the Clintons' health care plan)
3. ironic usages (e.g. "serious" applied by Atrios to you or Broder)
#2 and #3 aren't weird or failed epithets, they just simply aren't epithets.
Ironically, I would accept "serious incremental realist" as a description of myself, but I usually disagree with you.
Posted by Joe Klein
July 26, 2007
You study the facts on the ground, you study the history, you take into account opinions on all sides--not just your side. Unless the other side happens to be a bunch of Leftist Democrat pukes, in which case I spit in their worthless hippie faces.
Posted by Mike M.
July 26, 2007
Here's the objection: There are many "serious" people by your definition (thinkers who research and analyze reality) who are not given "serious" status by the media, not because they aren't rigorous in their approach but because they have come to left-wing conclusions.
You say "serious" is all about method. If that were true, there'd be no argument. The people who use the word ironically are telling you that "serious" has come to refer to conclusions, not method.
Posted by Joe Klein
July 26, 2007
Serious realists dismiss most Americans as America haters.
Posted by JJ
July 26, 2007
Paul Krugman, Unserious. In fact, he's a "fool," a "dilettante":
http://time-blog.com/swampland/2007/01/left_behind.html
But the people over at American Enterprise Institute? They are Serious people:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/25/aei-escalation/
Posted by DonB
July 26, 2007
Joe,
The problem with "serious" is that people like you use it to describe tools and hacks like Joe Lieberman and David Broder.
Every single person you and the MSM described as "serious" turned out to be catastrophically wrong. And people you described as "unserious" and ridiculed, people like Howard Dean, Paul Krugman, Michael Moore..........they were proven right.
Why don't you do some soul searching and ask yourself why you instinctively label war hawks as "serious"?
Posted by Cynical Bostonian
July 26, 2007
America's Concern Troll is whining again.
Posted by Nick
July 26, 2007
How does a serious person justify the use of the racist Southern Strategy by the Republican Party?
Republicans, and those who support that party, support the Southern Strategy as surely as Democrats support the pro-choice position.
If the Southern Strategy were as abhorent to Republicans as abortion often is, they would not support that party.
If the Republicans used a political strategy which vilified Jews, what would be your response to Republican politicians and their supporthers?
Posted by A. Wag
July 26, 2007
"You study the facts on the ground, you study the history, you take into account opinions on all sides--not just your side. Unless the other side happens to be a bunch of Leftist Democrat pukes, in which case I spit in their worthless hippie faces..."
"...because, during the sixties and early seventies, they had so much more sex than I did, the bastidges...
Samuel Alito will back me up on this!"
Posted by arch stanton
July 26, 2007
"To my mind, being a "serious person" means the following: you study the facts on the ground, you study the history, you take into account opinions on all sides--not just your side--and then you come to a conclusion."
-Joe Klein today.
"People like me who favor this program don't yet know enough about it yet. Those opposed to it know even less -- and certainly less than I do."
-Joe Klein on Bush Admin wiretapping.
"This is a really tough decision. War may well be the right decision at this point. In fact, I think it--it's--it-it probably is...Because sooner or later, this guy has to be taken out. Saddam has -- Saddam Hussein has to be taken out... The message has to be sent because if it isn't sent now, if we don't do this now, it empowers every would-be Saddam out there and every would-be terrorist out there."
-Joe Klein 6 months after he claims he came out against the war in the article he links to here.
"They're all going to laugh at you!!!"
Piper Laurie, "Carrie".
Posted by zota
July 26, 2007
Al Gore's anger "was a bit too sweaty and confused for most Americans"
But Newt Gingrich is "an intellectually honest policy wonk"
This is what serious people think.
Posted by david
July 26, 2007
Even if true, the stated reasons for invading Iraq were insufficient and the project was doomed to failure. This was quite obvious. Anyone who said otherwise was mistaken or dishonest. Joe, you can tell them that to their faces on TV, where it will be of great benefit in preventing future disasters. Why don't you?
Posted by mm
July 26, 2007
"And now, among certain precincts in the blogosphere--those prohibitively clever sorts who opine daily and endlessly about journalism without doing any reporting (or much thinking) about it--a new epithet: serious." JK
Most people that I read who criticize journalism use FACTS to back up their positions. I do consider this to be in a real sense original "reporting".
By the way, Joe, do you have any facts that you take issue with in Glenn Greenwald's article today, or did you just come by to beat your chest like a dumb ape?
The very "serious" Joe Klein, as he LIES to his readers like the good tool that he is for the gangsters in the White House in their abortive disastrous attempt to destroy Social Security.
*****
IT’S SO EASY (PART 4): How easy is it for President Bush to disinform voters about Social Security? Disinforming is very easy with Big Tools like Joe Klein around. The headline on Klein’s current column in Time: “The Incredible Shrinking Democrats.” Try to believe that he actually wrote it—and that Time really put it in print:
KLEIN (2/14/05): The Democrats are having trouble with graciousness these days...Congressional leaders Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi diminished themselves by staging an unnecessary pre-buttal and a misleading rebuttal to the President's [State of the Union Address]. Reid's claim that George W. Bush would reduce Social Security benefits 40% was hogwash. The President has merely stated the obvious, that reductions will be necessary. Reid also made the absurd comparison between Bush's very conservative investment-account proposal and Las Vegas gaming tables.
Amazing, isn’t it? In fact, Reid said that Bush would replace the current “guaranteed benefit” with a “guaranteed benefit cut of up to 40 percent.” And of course, Reid is perfectly right about that, even if Bush keeps hiding the ball, and even if millionaire pundits like Klein are there to help Dear Leader do it. But then, try to believe what Klein said next—and try to believe that Time printed it:
KLEIN (continuing directly): Finally, there was the boorish and possibly unprecedented hooting of the President by Democrats during the speech.
"No! No! No!" they shouted, inaccurately, when Bush asserted that the Social Security trust fund would, in a decade or so, start paying out more money than it takes in. If nothing is done, it surely will.
Except no, the “hooting” wasn’t unprecedented, and no, the shouting didn’t occur when Bush made the accurate statement Klein cites. The shouts of “No” quite clearly occurred when Bush made a wildly misleading mis-statement: “By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt” (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 2/4/05). How easy is to disinform voters? With fallen life-forms like Klein on call, it’s amazingly easy to do so. What’s the state of our current discourse? It isn’t just that mainstream journalists fail to challenge Bush’s misstatements. No, it’s now much worse than that—when Bush deliberately misleads the public, men like Klein simply pretend that he said something else! How easy is it to disinform voters? Many voters will read Klein this week, and for their trouble, he’ll lie in their face about what his Dear Leader said. (To read Thomas Lang’s superb treatment of Klein’s piece, you know what to do—just click here.)
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh021005.shtml
******
Posted by Cynical Bostonian
July 26, 2007
Perhaps America's Concern Troll doesn't realize that his ilk (Broder, Cohen etc) made a routine habit (when they were cowardly bootlicking this White House) of issuing blanket dismissings of people who opposed the Bush administration as 'unserious'.
That's where mocking the cocktail party elites as 'serious' came from.
Because you and your ilk were WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING.
Joe Klein was a war supporter, until he claimed he wasn't.
A Liebercrat apologist too.
America's Concern Troll is a wanker.
Posted by Glenn Greenwald
July 26, 2007
"For the foreseeable future, large media organizations will be necessary to enable cetain types of critically important investigative journalism. There are some truly superb and courageous journalists whom bloggers cannot replace. Indeed, so much of the blogger critique of the media is grounded in a desire for more of that. And there are many journalists who are receptive to the work of bloggers and use it as a resource. But the overwhelming sentiment towards the work of bloggers from media figures, especially our media stars, is to scorn it except when they ignore it. Their self-interest in relegating blogs to the "