“I think we can agree that “Catalonia” etc. — who claims to be a Bill Clinton/Ralph Nader supporter who …”
Just to clarify: I’m a former Democrat, but I’m not a Republican. I’ve always been a bit of a libertarian (small ‘l’), but I never realized it until I got serious about politics (post-9/11). The Nader vote was a protest vote. I’m no longer a Democrat for fairly obvious reasons. So, Bill, I think you were preparing to lecture us all about your own steely neutrality in regards to politics and your undeniable, demonstrated ability for flawless insight about the voting public ….
“… nonetheless says everything is going great in Afghanistan …”
Is that what I said? Is this what you, the human fulcrum who changed the course of an election (and therefore the course of human history), gleaned from what I wrote? Interesting. Here’s what I actually said:
“All I did was have some fun by extrapolating your statement out to 2002, which is round about the time we all started to hear that Afghanistan is ‘getting worse’. I’ve [heard] this tale for six years. Why should I believe the cries of wolf now?”
I noted that the Sky if Falling stories about Afghanistan have been around since 2002. I asked why Bill Bradley’s little iteration of this meme should be heeded. You extrapolate from this that I believe ‘everything is going great in Afghanistan’.
Geez, Bill, I thought you were a bit hackish, but now I just think you’re not too bright, which gives me yet another reason to doubt your Chicken Little judgments on Afghanistan. Although there is some hope: A stopped clock is right twice a day, and don’t worry, Afghanistan is guaranteed to have some really nasty patches in the road ahead.
So to summarize, aside from being wrong, you’re right, except in regards to usage of the word ‘critique’, where you’re neither right nor wrong, just foolish to bring it up and consider it intelligent commentary while simultaneously complaining about lack of intelligent commentary, good examples of which apparently include snarky meaningless comments on zen, cigars, relativistic children, and pseudo-literate references to Freud and conspiracy-mongering. Meanwhile, your support for removing Saddam in 2003 means your critique of Afghanistan in 2008 is immune to criticism, your strategic vote for McCain means you’re not in the tank for Obama, and your publishing a few articles means your audience is incapable of parsing out your true political inclinations because your mastery of language and craft leaves Shakespeare and Twain in the dust.
Is that a fairly accurate critique? Or am I being too critical?
