From "Half Empty" by David Rakoff (who was facing the cancer treatment of amputation of his left arm and shoulder):
A friend asks if I’ve “picked out” my prosthetic yet, as though I’d have my choice of titanium-plated cyborgiana at my disposal, like some amputee Second Life World of Warcraft character. Another friend, upon hearing my news, utters an unedited, “Oh my God, that’s so depressing!” Over supper, I am asked by another, “So if it goes to the lungs, is it all over?”...In a somewhat similar vein, in the NYT: "Trump’s Not Alone. A Lincoln Condolence Letter Stirred Controversy, Too."
But here’s the point I want to make about the stuff people say. Unless someone looks you in the eye and hisses, “You fucking asshole, I can’t wait until you die of this,” people are really trying their best. Just like being happy and sad, you will find yourself on both sides of the equation many times over your lifetime, either saying or hearing the wrong thing. Let’s all give each other a pass, shall we?
If we make it too hard to talk to a person in dire circumstances, a lot of people will play it safe and not speak at all.
Indeed, John Kelly advised Trump against calling the widows of fallen soldiers. But that's not the kind of person Trump is. He goes ahead and speaks, even though it's often imperfect, and he knows he's got antagonists ready to jump on anything he says. I've regarded him as a free-speech inspiration ever since I had a dream about him — long before the election — in which I hugged him and thanked him for showing that free speech — with mistakes, straight from the human head — is much better than inhibition, self-censorship, and holding back until you've somehow arrived at the ability to get it exactly right.
Here's something Scott Adams wrote (in the WSJ) about Trump's imperfect speech:
When Mr. Trump smack-tweets a notable public critic... it violates our expectations of his office. That's what makes it both entertaining and memorable. He often injects into his tweets what memory expert Carmen Simon calls a "little bit of wrongness" to make it hard to look away. If the wrongness alarms you, consider that for years he has adroitly operated within a narrow range of useful wrongness on Twitter without going too far. That suggests technique. In the Twitter environment, strategic wrongness is jet fuel.That's not about giving people a pass and tolerating wrongness. In this analysis, a little bit of wrongness is a good thing.
The Carmen Simon idea is: Impossible to Ignore. A different value of a little bit of wrongness is: Proof of Humanity. If you say things that aren't entirely correct, it shows you're not tightly scripted, that you are speaking the thoughts that are alive in your head right now. Perhaps when the President awkwardly connects volunteering for the military, understanding the risks, and the meaning of courage and, literally, it seems to say that the man signed up to die, the response should be something more like, Thank you for letting me see your imperfection, your humanity.
Posts
221 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 221 of 221"National Review"
Otherwise known as "the controlled opposition", back in 2009-2016.
Both Marcos and Franco had some of these guys.
Pravda is no more monolithic than our MSM. The fact that we have several news services doesn't matter because they all spout the same propaganda. Has anyone heard a different take on an issue from NBC, CBS or ABC? One can go back and forth through the channels and hear the same voice from all of them. The same 'issues', the same outrages, the same tired bias.
"when Hillary made her one gaffe in the campaign"
Snort.
Yeah. That's it. One gaffe.
Just one.
I think it's funny that this is still getting play in the media.
Libs and the media (but I repeat myself) need to get out of their bubble. The average voter is going to look at this kerfluffle and come to the following reasonable conclusions:
1. Trump made an akward call of condolence to a grieving widow.
2. A big-mouth congression woman blew it all out of proportion because it served her political ends.
3. The media keeps harping on it because it servers their political ends.
End.Of.Story.Move.On
Blogger mockturtle said...
Pravda is no more monolithic than our MSM. The fact that we have several news services doesn't matter because they all spout the same propaganda.
===========
By and the large the mainstream media, academia, and the Democrat party are all the same group. Members of that group will switch hats as time and circumstance demand. One year they'll be teaching in the Ivy's, the next year they'll occupy a position in the government, and the year after that they'll be reporting on the government. Thus one member of that group formulates policy, another member of that group reports on the policy, and a third member of that group analyzes that policy. So don't act shocked if all members of that same group share the same goals and philosophy.
Call them the Academedia.
"Stern criticized the media for being roped off from understanding America, saying, "the media should acknowledge its own failings in reflecting only their part of America"" The liberal bubble thing is overblown. Sure, progs are, strictly speaking, clueless. But they are not in the business of understanding. So petty bourgeois. They are into transformation. They know the enemy well enough to despise us.
Kevin, I actually agree with Ken Stern's point in the quote that you posted. I just corrected something you got wrong.
How would I know that from your post?
I found it interesting that he's no longer there and will look into that for my own interest, but your post could certainly be interpreted that (a) because he was fired, (b) this book is some sort of retribution for that fact.
Look, we need people here with different points of view who bring different information and insights to the discussion. But you have to recognize how your words are interpreted by others - if you actually care about impacting the debate, that is. Many people don't. Many want to call names rather than constructively engage.
I sense you want constructive engagement. I just think you're not going about it the right way. And I think you've lost your objectivity when it comes to Trump such that everything seems to revolve around him for you.
I'm trying to tell you this in the most friendly way I can. If you truly feel Rakoff's words don't apply to someone, don't believe that you can critically evaluate them anymore.
You can't. No one can.
But I look forward to your insights on other topics.
The Doofus-in-Chief is still on twitter trying to have a pissing match with Republican Senator Corker!
Actually, CNN shows it's Corker who's been pushing the whole thing and Trump has been very restrained.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/15/politics/bob-corker-donald-trump-timeline-relationship/index.html?mod=djemBestOfTheWeb
It's fair to argue that Trump should get a pass for trying, however ineptly, to console the widow. Presumably also the widow should get a pass for saying that she wasn't wholly satisfied.
This is obviously not the only way to go. Another perfectly sensible way to go would be to apologize gracefully if the call gave any offense.
But your framing of the issue leaves out, among other things, whether other acts merit a pass or an apology:
a. Trump for falsely implying that other presidents had not performed this obligation.
b. the Congresswoman, for politicizing the grieving family's sense of the inadequacy of the response.
c. Trump for falsely denying the substance of what he said and falsely accusing the Congresswoman of having misrepresented it.
d. Kelly for launching a further false accusation against the Congresswoman and then refusing to apologize for it, even when the falsehood was conclusively established.
Do these all get passes? I'd say that none do, and that all warrant an apology. I understand the strategy behind not apologizing. All I can say is it's not working with me.
I don't see how the idea of a little bit of wrongness, within a narrow range, being a good applies to any of these communications, let alone to twitters about Obama's citizenship, immigrants as rapists, millions of fraudulent votes, etc. Perhaps you believe that they are all good in the same sense and to the same degree. If so, I'd like to hear why.
@Buwaya,
"National Review"
Otherwise known as "the controlled opposition", back in 2009-2016.
Both Marcos and Franco had some of these guys.
________________________________________________________
I used to love National Review when Buckley was there.
They totally blew it in the 2016 election, with their ridiculous "NeverTrump" endorsement.
There are 2 exceptions: Andy McCarthy is great on anything relating to criminal prosecutions or FISA issues. Victor Davis Hanson is great on just about everything.
When a GOP Senator retires, or says he won't run again, and then sends means tweets about Trump, it's not very impressive.
Just leave and shut up.
No one believes he will do what he says, even if he threatens to violate the 1st amendment. His words wouldn't worry me if he was a private individual.
I have to keep pointing out that the Democrats installed the "Fairness Doctrine" when talk radio was the only alternative to th MSM and its left bias.
The internet has become another source,as we see here.
You Tube, owned by Google, is now shutting down conservative sites like Dennis Pager's "Prager U."
NBC caught Trump's attention by shutting down that Ronan Farrow program about Weinstein.
The FCC does have language about "The public interest" in its licensing documents.
We are seeing monopoly power in such sites as facebook and Google. NBC is not immune under the "Public interest' doctrine.
Stephen, a new leftie voice alleges, Trump for falsely implying that other presidents had not performed this obligation.
You might want to look at the actual video. I doubt you are interested.
I thought Hillary's "one gaffe" was to pop the corks on the champagne at 10 AM on Election Day.
"Almost all of Clinton’s perceived faults Trump has as well."
12 perceived faults of President Clinton (not shared by President Trump):
1. Mass incarceration.
2. Pushed through punitive welfare reform.
3. Deregulated Wall Street.
4. Gutted manufacturing via trade agreements.
5. No LGBT equality: Defense of Marriage Act.
6. Expanded the war on drugs.
7. Expanded the death penalty.
8. Fired Joycelyn Elders.
9. Turned Lincoln Bedroom into fundraising condo.
10. Bombed Sudanese pharmaceutical plant.
11. Smeared Sistah Souljah.
12. Knew about coming Rwandan genocide and did nothing.
PURPLE ELEPHANTS.
I dare you not to think of one.
The Rakoff quote is fantastic - thanks for posting that. I suspect he'd agree with me that today's scolds have made awkwardness a crime.
Michael K pontificated...
On two occasions I had to inform a wife that her husband was dead.
You're claiming that you only killed two married men?
There have been many other occasions but they were the worst.
It makes sense that since you're often incapable of forming a simple, clear sentence, that you killed a lot more than just two married men.
Killed =/= Unable to Save
I am willing to guess every one of the patients every doctor has ever treated have or will die.
Be a bigger dick.
"Our Press is not state run. The situation couldn’t be more different. "
Then it's worse. They willingly side with the democrat party to the detriment of actually impartially reporting. They are no longer the free press but the propaganda organ of the democrat party.
have a nice day, comrade.
Michael K,
Not a new voice: been reading the blog virtually since its inception, with an occasional comment.
Leftie--by your lights certainly.
I have read the transcript and think it is clear that Trump meant to imply that prior Presidents did less well than he. And that the implication was false. And that when called on it he didn't correct the implication or apologize for it, but instead hid behind his generals.
Other than that, and what you perceive as my ideological bias, what was wrong with what I said?
The story isn't about Trump.
The story is about Kelly throwing away his reputation by lying for Trump, so enthusiastically and with such a spectacular lack of success.
Why would Kelly trash his carefully crafted image, in service to a guy who was terrific as a promoter of Wrestlemania, but is so clearly out of his depth as POTUS?
I think that's why the media and pundits, even Anne, are in such a hurry to move on from this story. Trillions have been spent over the last 40 years burnishing the image of our often counter-productive, often dissembling, military, and no one, not even the stinking media, wants to see that questioned.
Post a Comment