WEeding Awards, vol. 8

Prologue

The comments are now complete. Click on the links below to jump to my discussion of each text:

38: Speech to NFIB Summit, by John McCain

39: (More) Remarks on Retirement Security, by Barack Obama

40: “Drill Here! Drill Now! Pay Less!,” by Rush Limbaugh

41: “Tax Relief for the Middle Class,” by Barack Obama

42: “Hail the Male,” an Interview with Kathleen Parker (conducted by Kathryn Jean Lopez) regarding Save the Males, National Review Online

WEeding Winner 38

[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]
[ A | B | C | D | E | F ]

Speech to NFIB Summit, by John McCain

Reasons for Winning:

“No matter which of us wins in November, there will be change in Washington. The question is what kind of change? Will we enact the single largest tax increase since the Second World War as my opponent proposes, or will we keep taxes low for families and employers? This election offers Americans a very distinct choice about what kind of change we will have. This is especially true for the small business community.” -John McCain

Comment:

Shall we count the confusions, my fellow Congresspersons? Shall we? Yes we shall:

The “us” in sentence 1 refers to McCain and Obama. Good.

But the “we” in sentence 3 refers to people who can “enact” national legislation. Does the President’s signing/not signing count as his “enacting” the legislation? (Remember, the President has three options: sign the bill presented to him, return it with comments [i.e., "veto" it], or ignore it. In the first and third cases, the bill becomes law.)

And even if the President’s signing/ignoring a bill constitutes his “enacting” it, there’s only one President. So who’s the “we” — which includes McCain — who is going to be “enacting” the legislation he’s discussing?

By the fourth sentence, McCain is using the first-person plural of all Americans. So within one paragraph, the first-person plural has shifted from meaning, “McCain/Obama,” to “the Two-Or-More-Persons-Who-Are-Simultaneously-President,” to “All Americans.”

Who’s writing McCain’s speeches?

[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C | D | E | F ]

“The strength of the American economy offers a better life to every society we trade with, and the good comes back to us in many ways — in better jobs, higher wages, and lower prices. Free trade can also give once troubled and impoverished nations a stake in the world economy, and in their relations with America.” -John McCain

Comment:

I ask once again: who is the “we” who trades with other “societies” (have you ever, btw, met a society walking down the street?)? Who is the “us” to whom “good comes back . . . in many ways,” given our trading with other societies?

Imagine you talk like this, and then discover some large American corporation is treating its foreign workers badly. And imagine you’re used to spitting WEeds when you talk.

How would you feel about yourself? After all, look what “we’re” doing!

How un-emotionally do you think you could discuss the situation and seek solutions?

[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C | D | E | F ]

“At the same time, we have to help displaced workers at every turn on a tough road, so that they are not just spectators on the opportunities of others. And I have made that commitment with reforms to expand and improve federal aid to American workers in need. We need to help millions of workers who have lost a job that won’t come back find a new one that won’t go away.” -John McCain

Comment:

This is a classic. “We,” McCain says, “have to help displaced workers at every turn on a tough road . . . .” While taking care of our own families, jobs, friends, etc.?

Oh, you didn’t mean we have to do all that, did you, Senator? No, I see that you go on to talk about “federal aid” as the way “we” can “help millions of workers . . . .”

And you threw in that little word “I” too, didn’t you? “I have made that commitment . . . .”

Well good. Looks like you’ll be taking care of “our” responsibilities for us.

Kind of like Jesus did with our sins on the Cross? Who’s the Messiah in this election again?

[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C | D | E | F ]

“Unfortunately, Senator Obama has a habit of talking down the value of our exports and trade agreements. He even proposed a unilateral re-negotiation of NAFTA — our agreement with Canada and Mexico that accounts for 33 percent of American exports. But we have a sharp disagreement here that I look forward to debating. If I am elected president, this country will honor its international agreements, including NAFTA, and we will expect the same of others. And in a time of uncertainty for American workers, we will not undo the gains of years in trade agreements now awaiting final approval.” -John McCain

Comment:

I didn’t realize I had exports! But I knew McCain’s wife was somehow involved in the beer industry, so maybe that’s what he means when he says, “our exports.” Maybe he’s talking about his and his wife’s exports. That must be it.

But if that’s the case, it sounds like the McCains are personally party to the NAFTA “agreement with Canada and Mexico.” Wow. I wonder what it takes to get get a personal contract with another country.

But wait. In the next sentence, the word “we” is clearly referring to McCain and Obama. So that must mean the instances of the first-person plural before it were too, right? Surely McCain’s speechwriter wouldn’t be so sloppy as to shift the meaning of a word within a single paragraph without clarification!

So it turns out that McCain and Obama are secret business partners! They probably don’t even care which one of them wins, so long as one of them gets in power and can manipulate their trade agreements with other countries by using the American Armed Forces!

Sweet plan.

But wait: there’s more! In the next sentence, McCain says he and Obama are going to bring the pain to other countries who try to cheat America (whatever that is; have you ever met America walking down the street?) on “its” (what? America is a thing that can have things? Creepy) “international agreements.”

And he promises that he and Obama won’t “undo the gains of years in trade agreements.” What a good bunch of guys, that ObaMcCain!

[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C | D | E | F ]

“And as we expand markets for Americans products, we must do more tax reform here at home. I will propose and sign into law a reform to permit the first-year expensing of new equipment and technology. We’re also going to keep the low rate on capital gains, so that businesses like yours can expand and create jobs instead of just sending more of your earnings to the government.” -John McCain

Comment:

Clearly still speaking of himself and Obama (there’s been no indication that the referrant [sp?] of the first-person plural has changed), McCain goes on to promise more bi-partisan working across the aisle between himself and Obama. Of course, it will be McCain himself who will “propose and sign into law” the relevant legislation, but Obama will be working hand in hand with him.

[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C | D | E | F ]

“We are going to create a new and simpler tax system — and give the American people a choice.” -John McCain

Comment:

Now, however, things a little more fuzzy regarding who “we” is. Between E and F, you see, there’s a sentence which reads: “Another of my disagreements with Senator Obama concerns the estate tax, which he proposes to increase to a top rate of 55 percent.”

It seems, therefore, that ObaMcCain may have had a falling out mid-speech. So there’s no telling who the “we” is who’s “going to create a new and simpler tax system . . . .”

Our only hint as to who the “we” is be found in the following sentence and a fragment: “As president, I will propose an alternative tax system. When this reform is enacted . . . .” Clearly, the “we” must be whomever can work with McCain (after he has proposed the legislation) to “enact” legislation.

I suppose he means Congress.

Okay, that’s reasonable.

And in that context, the instances of the first-person plural from there to the end make sense (since McCain is in Congress currently, and can, within certain bounds, speak in the first-person plural of them).

[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C | D | E | F ]

Judgment:

It needs WEeding. (”What’s wrong with WEeds?“)

[Post More Comments]
[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]

WEeding Winner 39

[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]

(More) Remarks on Retirement Security, by Barack Obama

Reasons for Winning:

[This is essentially version 2.0 of the speech which won WEedy 27.]

Comment:

Why bother?

[Post More Comments]

Judgment:

It’s like déjà vu, except not cool. Oh, and it’s got WEeds. (”What’s wrong with WEeds?“)

[Post More Comments]
[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]

WEeding Winner 40

[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]
[ A | B | C ]

“Drill Here! Drill Now! Pay Less!,” by Rush Limbaugh

Reasons for Winning:

“And they’ve got this pet phrase that’s designed to discourage the whole notion of drilling. ‘We can’t drill our way out of this’, is their phrase, we can’t drill our way out of this. Let me ask you people something. We are citizens of what? The United States of America. Now, since when are we gonna allow ourselves to be led by a bunch of people who say we can’t, when it comes to something that we’ve already done and that we have excelled at?” -Rush Limbaugh

Comment:

As always (or almost always, or a lot of the time, whichever will offend you less and be most truthful), Rush is making a great point. Americans have often been, and often continue to be awesome.

But the Leftists who say “We can’t drill our way out of this” are probably right. They probably can’t drill their way out of anything because they probably have never worked with drilling equipment. Very few Americans actually have.

So when Rush says that drilling is “something that we’ve already done and that we have excelled at,” he’s wrong. We haven’t, and thinking we have requires you to accept a logical fallacy which I discuss on the FAQ page.

[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C ]

“When did we decide we want to be led by a bunch of people that say that we are in a constant state of decline and that we deserve to be in a constant state of decline? When did we decide that we’re going to be led by a bunch of people that say ‘we can’t'? In your personal life, do you hang around with people who say, ‘You can’t do that. We can’t do that.’ That’s not inspiring.” -Rush Limbaugh

Comment:

Rush is making another excellent point here. We never decided any such thing. The fact that he can recognize this means he should have recognize that we have never drilled either.

[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C ]

“Why in the name of hell would people vote for people who would tell you, we can’t do that? We can’t drill our way out of this. Yes, the hell we can. It’s that simple. And, yes, the hell we should. It’s that simple. Drill here. Drill now. Pay less. We’re the United States of America. We can do it.” -Rush Limbaugh

Comment:

That first sentence is a great question, like the ones I keep asking over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over . . . .

But as I pointed out above, just because some Americans can drill doesn’t mean America can, or that we can. Let’s hope some Americans do start drilling here soon, though!

[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C ]

Judgment:

Rush — though a favorite of mine (I’ve written about him many times before) — is usually a pretty WEedy talker, and this little piece is no exception. (”What’s wrong with WEeds?“)

[Post More Comments]
[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]

WEeding Winner 41

[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]
[ A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I ]

“Tax Relief for the Middle Class,” by Barack Obama

Reasons for Winning:

“Americans work longer and harder than the people of any other wealthy nation. We’ve built the largest economy that the world has ever known, and the biggest middle class in history.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

We have? I was so busy trying to manage my own life, I hadn’t realized I had done that.

[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I ]

“But for the last eight years, we’ve failed to keep the fundamental promise that if you work hard you can live your own version of the American dream. Instead, folks are working harder for less. The cost of everything from gas, to groceries to tuition is skyrocketing. It’s harder to save, and harder to retire.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

Come again? I’ve “failed to keep” some “fundamental promise”? And the evidence for my failure is that the “cost of everything from gas, to groceries to tuition” has “skyrocket[ed]“?

If that’s an example of how I’ve failed to keep my promises, then I must somehow be responsible for those skyrocketing costs.

What in the world is Obama talking about?

And since he speaks in the first-person plural, he is also blaming himself for the rise in the cost of gas, groceries, and tuition.

But he wants you to ignore everything he’s done to you, and vote for him anyway?

[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I ]

“I think that’s exactly what we need to change in Washington. We can’t keep driving a wider and wider gap between the few who are rich and the rest who struggle to keep pace. We can’t keep pursuing policies that favor Wall Street over Main Street, because that approach ends up hurting both. It’s time to turn the page. I will stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas, and put a tax cut into the pockets of working people, and struggling homeowners, and seniors. And we’ll simplify our tax code so that folks don’t have to work the system to get a fair deal.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

After a series of comments talking about how terrible Bush and McCain and Washington, DC in general are, Obama suddenly turns everything on its head by using the word “we.”

You‘ve been doing all these terrible things, Senator? And you expect us to believe you’re going to change? You may promise to “stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas,” but since that’s what you’ve been doing all this time, how can we trust you?

[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I ]

“First, we will provide real tax relief for the middle class by cutting taxes for 150 million Americans. We’ll reward work through a “Making Work Pay” tax credit of $500 for American workers - and $1,000 for working families like Ryan and Jenny’s - to offset the payroll tax that you’re already paying.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

We will? Yay! Go us! I feel better about myself already.

[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I ]

“The third thing I’ll do as President is keep our promise with America’s seniors.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

Great. Can you keep my other promises for me, too, Senator? Like the one I made about showing up for work? Or the one I made about loving and honoring my wife? Thanks. That’ll make my life so much easier.

[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I ]

“When I’m President, we’ll put in place a system where 40 million Americans with a job and a bank account who take the standard deduction can do their taxes in less than five minutes.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

We are just getting better and better. It’s almost enough to make up for how terrible we’ve been to each other with our driving up the cost of everything.

[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I ]

“To pay for this, we’ll restore a sense of fairness.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

Well, thank goodness.

(Oh, and PS: Tax cuts pay for themselves, when done right. But being fair is nice. So if you want to do that too, we can do that.)

[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I ]

“It’s time to end a philosophy in Washington that tells people like Ryan and Jenny that ‘you’re on your own’, because we’re all in this together as Americans.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

And since we all believe the GIMOO/GMI Myth, the fact that “we’re all in this together” will obviously lead us to let government solve our problems!

[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I ]

“My tax cut is guided by the simple principle that what’s good for Main Street is good for our entire economy. That’s how we’ll get people the relief they need, while getting our economy back on the right track.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

What? GIMOO/GMI?

That’s what I thought.

[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I ]

Judgment:

What “we” need is someone to WEed your speeches, Senator. (”What’s wrong with WEeds?“)

[Post More Comments]
[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]

WEeding Winner 42

[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]
[ A | B | C | D | E | F | G ]

“Hail the Male,” an Interview with Kathleen Parker (conducted by Kathryn Jean Lopez) regarding Save the Males, National Review Online

Reasons for Winning:

“STM aims to shine a light on all the ways our culture degrades and disrespects males and suggests that women might drop their torches and pitchforks for the sake of sanity and the little ones.” -Kathleen Parker

Comment:

Help me out here. How is it “your” culture if you don’t degrade and disrespect males yourself? What is your culture if you’re not part of it?

What is a culture, anyway? Have you ever met one, walking down the street? Did it waive to you?

[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C | D | E | F | G ]

“We are fairly willing to believe anything about men as long as it’s bad.” -Kathleen Parker

Comment:

You are, Ms. Parker? You’re fairly willing to believe anything about men as long as it’s bad? And yet you titled your book Save the Males?

[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C | D | E | F | G ]

“Anyone who spends an hour on a playground knows that male and female are different. When these differences benefit the female of the species, of course, we celebrate them. When they seem to benefit the male, we try to figure out a way to reconfigure the landscape.” -Kathleen Parker

Comment:

You do, Ms. Parker? You try to figure out a way to reconfigure the landscape whenever differences between males and females benefits the males? I find that hard to believe.

[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C | D | E | F | G ]

“When Fortune Magazine features a trophy husband on the cover of a man wearing an apron and beaming virtue from every pore, we might have gone too far in domesticating men.” -Kathleen Parker

Comment:

Now that you’ve gone too far, Ms. Parker, what are you going to do to go back? Is writing this book perhaps your way of making up for having gone too far?

[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C | D | E | F | G ]

“You write that “The ultimate act of emasculation is, of course, the elimination of man’s central role as father.” Have we done that??” -Kathryn Jean Lopez

“Absolutely. Fatherhood has been increasingly diminished the past few decades. We applaud single motherhood, celebrate sperm shopping as though searching out that perfect pair of Kate Spades and otherwise treat fathers as optional accessories.” -Kathleen Parker

Comment:

? ? ?

Good question, Ms. Lopez. Have we? When did you do this, Ms. Parker? What kind of monsters are we?!?

(And why should I listen to you if you’ve done these kinds of terrible things?)

[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C | D | E | F | G ]

“We’ve confused the ability to die with the ability to fight.” -Kathleen Parker

Comment:

Do I need to ask it again?

[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C | D | E | F | G ]

“You and I have a mutual friend who talks about “men who love women.” After the portrait you paint of the way women treat men, what man in his right mind would ever want to have anything to do with women?” -Kathryn Jean Lopez

“The kind who knows our mutual friend. It helps that she loves men. As do we, Kathryn.” -Kathleen Parker

Comment:

It would help if you didn’t speak in the first-person when you weren’t talking about yourself . . . . And there’s something disturbingly collectivist about talking about “the way women treat men.”

(And there’s something disturbingly double-speak-ish about talking about “the way women treat men” and then distinguishing yourself, a woman, as someone who doesn’t treat men that way.)

[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C | D | E | F | G ]

Judgment:

It’s a shame that such an important issue would be couched in so many WEeds. (”What’s wrong with WEeds?“)

[Post More Comments]
[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]

Call for Nominations

Have you encountered any texts online (posts, articles, comments, speeches, websites, etc.) which need WEeding? I welcome nominations for future WEeding Awards, so keep your eye out while you’re surfing! Just use the Contact page, and send me the URL.

Thanks!

Tags: Barack Obama, John McCain, Kathleen Parker, Kathryn Jean Lopez, Men, Oil, Retirement, Rush Limbaugh, Save the Males, Small Business, Tax Cuts, Women

Posted in Volumes | 3 Comments »

Volume 7

Jun 8th, 2008 by Micah Tillman

WEeding Awards, vol. 7

Prologue

I’m on the brink of declaring Barack Obama the WEediest writer in history. He always delivers. (Of course, there’s always the question of who actually writes his material. Politicians and their speechwriters . . . .)

With Obama’s nomination victory speech this week, I honor an amazing piece of collectivist WEediness, published, ironically, by one of the biggest libertarian sites known to humanity. If humanity is the kind of thing that can know things. If humanity even exists.

Along with these two, I’ve included links to three other pieces (one by Obama) which received nominations and — I believe — deserved to win. But, unfortunately, I didn’t have the time this week to give all the nominated pieces their just deserts.

Contents

36: Nomination Victory Speech, by Barack Obama

37: “Whose Iraq Is It, Anyway?,” by Steve Chapman, Reason

Other Nominees:

“It’s Time to Talk to Syria,” by John Kerry and Chuck Hagel, Wall Street Journal

“The Gas Prices We Deserve,” by George Will, Washington Post

Remarks at AIPAC Policy Conference, by Barack Obama

Tags: Barack Obama, Chuck Hagel, George Will, John Kerry, Reason, Steve Chapman, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post

Posted in Volumes | 3 Comments »

Volume 6

Jun 1st, 2008 by Micah Tillman

WEeding Awards, vol. 6

Prologue

Seven more articles win WEedies, this week, and six of them come from conservatives. Volume 6 begins with four pieces on what we might call “domestic” issues, and ends with three pieces on “war” issues.

No less than two pieces tie the record for highest WEediness quotient (i.e., ∞), but one of them moves into official first place due to its number of WEedy sentences!!!

Click on the links below to jump to the quotations and comments for whichever article looks most interesting.

Contents

29: “Sacrifices to the Climate Gods,” by Roy Spencer, National Review Online

30: “How We Really Help Ted,” by Jonathan Alter, Newsweek

31: “All About Me,” by Victor Davis Hanson, Real Clear Politics

32: “Same-Sex Marriage: Giant Leap in the Wrong Direction,” by Frank Pastore, Town Hall

33: “Feith: The War Is About Eliminating a Security Threat, Not Democracy Promotion,” by Andy McCarthy, National Review Online’s “The Corner” blog

34: “New Crops for Afghanistan,” by Lisa Schiffren, National Review Online’s “The Corner” blog

35: “McCain Takes Obama to School on Iraq,” by David Limbaugh, Town Hall

Tags: Andy McCarthy, David Limbaugh, Frank Pastore, Jonathan Alter, Lisa Schiffren, National Review Online, Newsweek, Real Clear Politics, Roy Spencer, The Corner, Town Hall, Victor Davis Hanson

Posted in Volumes | 11 Comments »

Volume 5

May 25th, 2008 by Micah Tillman

WEeding Awards, vol.5

Prologue

A new format this week leads to a more-amusing read, if I do say so myself. I have interspersed my commentary with the quotations for each WEedy article, to delightful effect.

As always, the writers whose works are honored come from both sides of the political aisle. Volume 5 begins and ends with pieces on “security,” contains the work of no less than four U.S. Senators, a record-breaking speech (60 WEedy sentences!), and the first-ever winner of an Honorary WEedy.

You’ll want to pay particular attention to the Honorary WEedy-winning piece, as it evidences everything that is wrong with WEedy thinking, without using a single WEed. A sight not to be missed!

Contents

21: “Securing the Future,” by William Bennett and Brian Kennedy, National Review Online

22: “Republicans and Our Enemies,” by Joseph Biden, Wall Street Journal

23: “To Meet Or Not To Meet?,” by Andy McCarthy, National Review Online

24: “The Wisdom In Talking,” by John Kerry, Washington Post

25: “Farming for riches,” by John McCain, Chicago Tribune

26: “Renewing U.S. Leadership in the Americas,” by Barack Obama

27: Remarks on Retirement Security, by Barack Obama

28: “In Praise of Liberal Guilt,” by Ron Rosenbaum, Slate [Honorary Winner!]

WEeding Winner 21

[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]

“Securing the Future,” by William Bennett and Brian Kennedy, National Review Online

Reasons for Winning:

“We may have been tentative about going to war throughout our history (as we certainly were prior to December 7, 1941), but once a war commenced, the American people — for the most part — united to wage war and earn victory.” -William Bennett and Brian Kennedy

Comment:

A personal question: How many wars have you gone into? Bennett and Kennedy think they’ve gone into a lot. This is an amazing feat, if it’s true.

“Today, we spend less than 4 percent of our GDP on the military.” -William Bennett and Brian Kennedy

Comment:

This is technically true, seeing as few of us spend any of our income on the military. We spend a lot on food, housing, entertainment, travel, and the IRS. Some people do make donations to military-related charities. But there’s no way any one of us could spend more than 4 percent of the national GDP on anything (nobody’s that rich), and that’s what Bennett and Kennedy think we should be doing.

“We should establish a comprehensive layered missile-defense system that will protect our nation from any incoming missile attack. We can achieve this goal within three years with a financial commitment of under $30 billion per year, as outlined by the Independent Working Group on Missile Defense. We Americans have debated such a system for more than two decades and have only now begun a very rudimentary system, which by the president’s own admission remains quite “modest.”” -William Bennett and Brian Kennedy

Comment:

Actually, what I should be doing is my job. And Bennett and Kennedy should be doing their jobs too. There’s no way any of us could “establish a comprehensive layered missile-defense system” “within three years” no matter how much of “a financial commitment” people gave us. We simply don’t have the know-how to do such a thing.

Furthermore, Americans have not been having a debate about a missile-defense system “for more than two decades.” Most Americans probably haven’t even heard of such a thing. There may be pundits who have been having that argument for that long, but not all Americans are pundits.

“We should stop all aid to countries of questionable allegiance to the United States, countries that abuse human rights, and countries that oppose our efforts against radical Islam.” -William Bennett and Brian Kennedy

Comment:

What I want to ask Bennett and Kennedy is why they were giving aid to such countries in the first place, and what’s made them change their minds.

“Given the ends to which our enemies will go to destroy us, we should, as Claremont Institute Fellow Mark Helprin has written, “Begin an effort on a scale several times greater than that of the Manhattan Project, and with similar or greater urgency, to find antidotes, immunizations, and effective treatment for the full range of chemical and biological warfare agents. . . .”" -William Bennett and Brian Kennedy

Comment:

Really? Mr. Helprin thinks we should all drop our day jobs and get to work on this?

Judgment:

Messrs. Bennett and Kennedy have filled their article with WEeds. (”What’s wrong with weeds?“)

WEediness Quotient: [FAQ]

7/19 = 0.368421

[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]

WEeding Winner 22

[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]

“Republicans and Our Enemies,” by Joseph Biden, Wall Street Journal

Reasons for Winning:

“Instead, Mr. Bush has turned a small number of radical groups that hate America into a 10-foot tall existential monster that dictates every move we make.” -Joseph Biden

Comment:

Mr. Biden takes all his orders from an imaginary monster George Bush made up? That’s hilarious.

“If they can’t identify the enemy or describe the war we’re fighting, it’s difficult to see how we will win.” -Joseph Biden

Comment:

I don’t know about you, but I haven’t been fighting anyone. So I’m not sure who Mr. Biden thinks “we’re fighting.” If he can’t identify those who are fighting, how does he expect “them” to “identify the enemy or describe the war” that is being fought.

“The net effect of demanding preconditions that Iran rejects is this: We get no results and Iran gets closer to the bomb.” -Joseph Biden

Comment:

I’m not expecting to get any results out of some politicians’ discussions with politicians from Iran. Should I be?

“Instead of regime change, we should focus on conduct change. We should make it very clear to Iran what it risks in terms of isolation if it continues to pursue a dangerous nuclear program but also what it stands to gain if it does the right thing. That will require keeping our allies in Europe, as well as Russia and China, on the same page as we ratchet up pressure.” -Joseph Biden

Comment:

Okay. Changing my focus. Thanks Joe!

Oh. But wait. How am I supposed to “ratchet up pressure” on Iran? I have no clout of any kind.

“It also requires a much more sophisticated understanding than Mr. Bush or Mr. McCain seem to possess that by publicly engaging Iran – including through direct talks – we can exploit cracks within the ruling elite, and between Iran’s rulers and its people, who are struggling economically and stifled politically.” -Joseph Biden

Comment:

It’s nice that Mr. Biden believes in you and me so much. We can do it!

“Iran’s people need to know that their government, not the U.S., is choosing confrontation over cooperation. Our allies and partners need to know that the U.S. will go the extra diplomatic mile – if we do, they are much more likely to stand with us if diplomacy fails and force proves necessary.” -Joseph Biden

Comment:

And Mr. Biden needs to keep straight about whom he’s talking. How is it he can distinguish between “Iran’s people” and “their government” but can’t distinguish between the American people and their government?

“The worst nightmare for a regime that thrives on tension with America is an America ready, willing and able to engage. Since when has talking removed the word “no” from our vocabulary?” -Joseph Biden

Comment:

I don’t know, Joe. You tell me. I hadn’t notice a problem with my vocabulary.

Judgment:

Yet another politician who writes WEedily. (”What’s wrong with weeds?“)

WEediness Quotient: [FAQ]

8/7 = 1.142857

[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]

WEeding Winner 23

[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]

“To Meet Or Not To Meet?,” by Andy McCarthy, National Review Online

Reasons for Winning:

“[W]hen the mullahs looked at the Bush administration’s front-loaded, precondition-free offer, they laughed their heads off. They told us to take a $3- (now $4-) dollar-a-gallon hike.” -Andy McCarthy

Comment:

Interesting. You think I’d remember something like that. But I can’t recall that ever happening to me.

“So what did the Bush State Department do?

“. . . .

“[W]e not only demanded no preconditions for negotiations; we persisted in patently futile negotiations even as they thumbed our eyes.” -Andy McCarthy

Comment:

Wait. What? I’m in the Bush State Department now?

And what a bunch of idiots we are, if McCarthy is right about us!

“And why Sen. Barack Obama feels like he has to lie about what he said rather than argue that it’s not all that more delusional than the farce in which we’ve been engaged for several years running.” -Andy McCarthy

Comment:

Have you noticed being “engaged” in a “delusional . . . farce . . . for several years running”? Maybe you have, but I bet it’s had nothing to do with Iran, has it?

Judgment:

McCarthy can’t keep straight about whom he is talking, and thus writes WEedily. (”What’s wrong with weeds?“)

WEediness Quotient: [FAQ]

3/2 = 1.5

[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]

WEeding Winner 24

[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]

“The Wisdom In Talking,” by John Kerry, Washington Post

Reasons for Winning:

” Lost in the rhetoric was the question America deserves to have answered: Why should we engage with Iran?” -John Kerry

Comment:

I don’t know, John. Why? I’ve never met Iran, have you? Could you give me some pointers on how to engage it?

“Direct negotiations may be the only means short of war that can persuade Iran to forgo its nuclear capability. Given that a nuclear Iran would menace Israel, drive oil prices up past today’s record highs and possibly spark a regional arms race, shouldn’t we be doing all we can to avoid that conflagration?” -John Kerry

Comment:

I’m here for you, Mr. Kerry. You just let me know what I can do.

Nothing? Oh, okay. Why did you say “we” then?

“What might we achieve by talking with Iran? Some say our engagement to date has not been productive — but a less half-hearted and less conditional approach might well break the stalemate. We won’t know until we try.” -John Kerry

Comment:

Well, we’d achieve “getting ourselves committed to mental institutions for talking to imaginary objects,” for one. I haven’t had any engagement with Iran, or with any country for that matter, so I don’t know “some” are saying that my engagement with Iran “to date has not been productive.”

And, despite what Mr. Kerry thinks, “we” won’t know, even if “we” try. It’s impossible to talk to a country (countries don’t have ears or eyes), and none of us are diplomats.

“Dialogue helps us isolate Ahmadinejad rather than empowering him to isolate us. More important, even if we fail to reach an agreement, engaging Iran will spark three conversations likely to strengthen our position.” -John Kerry

Comment:

Did you know that you personally can isolate Ahmadinejad?! Well now you know!

“The first is between our leaders and Iran’s. From nonproliferation to counterterrorism, frankly, Iran won’t care for much of what we have to say — but at the right moment, it is not unreasonable to think Tehran would cut a deal in exchange for economic incentives, energy assistance, diplomatic normalization or a noninvasion guarantee.” -John Kerry

Comment:

The pain! Notice how he clearly identifies who would actually be talking in the first sentence, only to go on in the second to pretend it’s actually “we” who are talking.

No wonder Congress is so messed up. It appears that Senators cannot think.

“Second is the conversation America’s president should be having with the Iranian people. We should seize the chance to tell some of the region’s most pro-American people how their own president has isolated them, denying their great culture its place in the world and the region a constructive dialogue.” -John Kerry

Comment:

What?! Are you listening to yourself write, Mr. Kerry? If the President is conversing, then “we” aren’t saying anything.

“The third conversation is with the world. By engaging Iran, we reclaim the moral high ground — no small feat. If Iran refuses to budge, we have new leverage to expose it as a threat whose bad intentions cannot be explained away.” -John Kerry

Comment:

Weren’t you wondering how you could get your moral high ground and leverage over Iran back?

“As Iran’s centrifuges churn out enriched uranium, we’re asking the wrong question. Instead of wondering why Barack Obama wants to talk with Iran, we should ask: “What are George Bush and John McCain waiting for?”" -John Kerry

Comment:

Clearly “we” aren’t asking the wrong question, Mr. Kerry. You think you’re asking the right question, and therefore can’t honestly speak in the first person about asking the wrong one?

Judgment:

John Kerry’s article joins the ranks of WEedy pieces by United States Senators. (”What’s wrong with weeds?“)

WEediness Quotient: [FAQ]

12/1 = 12

[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]

WEeding Winner 25

[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]

“Farming for riches,” by John McCain, Chicago Tribune

Reasons for Winning:

“Can we honestly demand fair and free trade from other countries when this bill increases trade distorting payment rates and restores an illegal cotton program?” -John McCain

Comment:

McCain thinks you’re being a hypocrite.

“The majority of subsidies in this proposal go to large commercial farms that average $200,000 in annual income and $2 million in net worth, and the bill allows a single farmer to earn more than $1 million before cutting subsidies. How can we credibly extend this largesse to this constituency? If I am elected president, I will seek an end to all farm subsidies and tariffs that are not based on clear need.” -John McCain

Comment:

McCain thinks you’re a prodigal partisan, and to atone for this you’ll have to enter the rehab of voting for him.

“I am not opposed to providing a reasonable risk management for farmers. When farmers suffer from a natural disaster such as droughts or floods, we should assist them. But this bill fails to make the reforms needed to provide that assistance responsibly.” -John McCain

Comment:

And how to “we” assist them, Mr. McCain? Through government, right? Thought so.

Judgment:

Though less WEEdy than Obama’s speech, still WEedy. (”What’s wrong with weeds?“)

WEediness Quotient: [FAQ]

3/6 = 0.5

[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]

WEeding Winner 26

[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]

“Renewing U.S. Leadership in the Americas,” by Barack Obama

Reasons for Winning:

“Rich in resources, we have yet to vanquish poverty.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

Rich in resources, eh? Maybe you, Mr. Obama.

“At our best, the United States has been a force for these four freedoms in the Americas. But if we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll acknowledge that at times we’ve failed to engage the people of the region with the respect owed to a partner.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

At my best, I’ve never been the United States. And I’m not so sure I want a president who’s been disrespecting “the people of the region.”

“He raised the hopes of the region that our engagement would be sustained instead of piecemeal.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

All my engagements have been sustained.

“The situation has changed in the Americas, but we’ve failed to change with it. Instead of engaging the people of the region, we’ve acted as if we can still dictate terms unilaterally. We have not offered a clear and comprehensive vision, backed up with strong diplomacy. We are failing to join the battle for hearts and minds. For far too long, Washington has engaged in outdated debates and stuck to tired blueprints on drugs and trade, on democracy and development — even though they won’t meet the tests of the future.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

And he expects you to vote for him . . . why? Because he’s so good at insulting you?

“If we don’t turn away from the policies of the past, then we won’t be able to shape the future.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

What? Oh, sorry, I was distracted by the policies of the past. Could you say it again?

“We can continue as a bystander, or we can lead the hemisphere into the 21st century. And when I am President of the United States, we will choose to lead.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

Obama will make our decisions for us? Do we get to make any for ourselves?

“This is the terrible and tragic status quo that we have known for half a century - of elections that are anything but free or fair; of dissidents locked away in dark prison cells for the crime of speaking the truth. I won’t stand for this injustice, you won’t stand for this injustice, and together we will stand up for freedom in Cuba.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

I haven’t been around “for half a century” yet. How could I know something for that long?

Notice how he gets “we” right in the second sentence after botching it in the first.

“After eight years of the disastrous policies of George Bush, it is time to pursue direct diplomacy, with friend and foe alike, without preconditions. There will be careful preparation. We will set a clear agenda. And as President, I would be willing to lead that diplomacy at a time and place of my choosing, but only when we have an opportunity to advance the interests of the United States, and to advance the cause of freedom for the Cuban people.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

Good. Good. I like to know what I’m going to be doing ahead of time. Let me write this down. Okay. So, I’ll be setting a clear agenda. Good. What else? Oh. I’ll be having opportunities to advance the interests of the United states, and the cause of freedom for the Cuban people. Sweet.

“I will maintain the embargo. It provides us with the leverage to present the regime with a clear choice: if you take significant steps toward democracy, beginning with the freeing of all political prisoners, we will take steps to begin normalizing relations.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

If there’s one thing I hate it’s losing my leverage over other countries.

“We must put forward a vision of democracy that goes beyond the ballot box. We should increase our support for strong legislatures, independent judiciaries, free press, vibrant civil society, honest police forces, religious freedom, and the rule of law. That is how we can support democracy that is strong and sustainable not just on an election day, but in the day to day lives of the people of the Americas.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

And how exactly am I supposed to be increasing my support for all those things? Should I sent a card?

“That is why there will never be true security unless we focus our efforts on targeting every source of fear in the Americas. That’s what I’ll do as President of the United States.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

I’ll take the first five sources of fear, if you take the last five.

“When I am President, we will continue the Andean Counter-Drug Program, and update it to meet evolving challenges. We will fully support Colombia’s fight against the FARC. We’ll work with the government to end the reign of terror from right wing paramilitaries. We will support Colombia’s right to strike terrorists who seek safe-haven across its borders. And we will shine a light on any support for the FARC that comes from neighboring governments.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

I am relieved to hear this. I was afraid my support for and involvement in that was about to reach its end. But Obama will help me keep going.

“We must also make clear our support for labor rights, and human rights, and that means meaningful support for Colombia’s democratic institutions. We’ve neglected this support - especially for the rule of law - for far too long.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

And that’s why you should vote for me! I neglect things for far too long! -Obama

“Because if we’ve learned anything in our history in the Americas, it’s that true security cannot come from force alone.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

I have a history in the Americas during which I’ve learned things? Or is there some kind of collective consciousness going on that I’m missing out on?

“We must support Mexico’s effort to crack down. But we must stand for more than force - we must support the rule of law from the bottom up. That means more investments in prevention and prosecutors; in community policing and an independent judiciary.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

And the charity which makes “investments in prevention and prosecutors; in community policing and an independent judiciary” is? Oh, I see. You mean the government would do all that, and I could talk in the first person about it.

“[T]he Merida Initiative does not invest enough in Central America, where much of the trafficking and gang activity begins. And we must press further south as well.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

I’m kind of busy here, at the moment. Could I “press further south” later?

“We have to do our part. And that is why a core part of this effort will be a northbound-southbound strategy. We need tougher border security, and a renewed focus on busting up gangs and traffickers crossing our border. But we must address the material heading south as well. As President, I’ll make it clear that we’re coming after the guns, we’re coming after the money laundering, and we’re coming after the vehicles that enable this crime. And we’ll crack down on the demand for drugs in our own communities, and restore funding for drug task forces and the COPS program. We must win the fights on our own streets if we’re going to secure the region.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

And how do you expect me to do all this, Mr. Obama? Oh, that’s right, you don’t. You expect government to do it, and me to pretend I’m doing it.

“The third part of my agenda is advancing freedom from want, because there is much that we can do to advance opportunity for the people of the Americas.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

Don’t you mean, there’s much “government” can do?

“For two hundred years, the United States has made it clear that we won’t stand for foreign intervention in our hemisphere. But every day, all across the Americas, there is a different kind of struggle - not against foreign armies, but against the deadly threat of hunger and thirst, disease and despair. That is not a future that we have to accept - not for the child in Port au Prince or the family in the highlands of Peru. We can do better. We must do better.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

People are always saying Obama is the young one. But turns out he’s 200 years old.

And in Obama’s world, you can accept other people’s futures for them.

“We cannot ignore suffering to our south, nor stand for the globalization of the empty stomach. Responsibility rests with governments in the region, but we must do our part. I will substantially increase our aid to the Americas, and embrace the Millennium Development Goals of halving global poverty by 2015. We’ll target support to bottom-up growth through micro financing, vocational training, and small enterprise development.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

We will? Good. And the charity to which I should be sending my donation is?

“There’s nothing protectionist about demanding that trade spreads the benefits of globalization, instead of steering them to special interests while we short-change workers at home and abroad. . . . And if John McCain thinks that we can paper over our failure of leadership in the region by occasionally passing trade deals with friendly governments, then he’s out of touch with the people of the Americas.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

Once again, Obama insults himself and everyone else. Evidently, “we” are “short-chang[ing] workers at home and abroad.” What a terrible bunch of people we are.

Not only that, but we’ve had a “failure of leadership in the region.” I didn’t know it was okay to think of myself as a leader in the Americas.

“And that is why we must seize a unique opportunity to lead the region toward a more secure and sustainable energy future.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

What if I don’t?

“We need to go beyond bilateral agreements. We need a regional approach. Together, we can forge a path toward sustainable growth and clean energy.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

I don’t have any lateral agreements at all. Maybe I should work my way up to bilateral first.

“That’s why I’ve proposed a cap and trade system to limit our carbon emissions and to invest in alternative sources of energy. We’ll allow industrial emitters to offset a portion of this cost by investing in low carbon energy projects in Latin America and the Caribbean. And we’ll increase research and development across the Americas in clean coal technology, in the next generation of sustainable biofuels not taken from food crops, and in wind and solar energy.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

We’re all government regulators/scientists now?

“We’ll enlist the World Bank, the Organization of American States, and the Inter-American Development Bank to support these investments, and ensure that these projects enhance natural resources like land, wildlife, and rain forests. We’ll finally enforce environmental standards in our trade deals. We’ll establish a program for the Department of Energy and our laboratories to share technology with countries across the region. We’ll assess the opportunities and risks of nuclear power in the hemisphere by sitting down with Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and Chile. And we’ll call on the American people to join this effort through an Energy Corps of engineers and scientists who will go abroad to help develop clean energy solutions.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

Oh, I see. Deputized government regulators/scientists. And inspirational speakers to boot.

“But only if we recognize that in the 21st century, we cannot treat Latin America and the Caribbean as a junior partner, just as our neighbors to the south should reject the bombast of authoritarian bullies.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

I’d rather not treat entire regions of the world in any way at all. I try to keep my relationships personal. Is that okay?

AA:

“We can renew our leadership in the hemisphere. We can win the support not just of governments, but of the people of the Americas. But only if we leave the bluster behind. Only if we are strong and steadfast; confident and consistent.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

Did you realize you were a former leader of the hemisphere who has lost your leadership role due to your blusteriness?

Judgment:

This speech has got to be the greatest achievement in WEediness ever. (”What’s wrong with weeds?“)

WEediness Quotient: [FAQ]

60/63 = 0.952380 [A new record for greatest number of WEedy sentences!]

[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]

WEeding Winner 27

[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]

Remarks on Retirement Security, by Barack Obama

Reasons for Winning:

“Americans who work hard their entire lives have earned the right to retire with dignity and security. That’s the promise that each of us wants to be realized within our own families, and it’s a promise that we must keep for all American families.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

And how do you propose I, or any one else, “keep [a promise] for all American families”? I try not to make promises to that many people.

The answer, of course, is to vote for Barack Obama. He can fulfill your promises (the ones you didn’t make but for some reason have to “keep”) for you.

“That way we can extend the promise of Social Security without shifting the burden on to seniors. And we should include what’s called a “donut hole” to make sure that this change doesn’t ensnare any middle class Americans.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

Evidently Mr. Obama thinks you’ll be sitting in on the legislation-writing sessions on Capitol Hill.

“It’s time to stop cutting back the safety net for working people while we protect golden parachutes for the well-off.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

Would you vote for someone after he accused you of what Obama just accused you of?

“And as President, I’ll limit circumstances when retirement benefits can be cut, and increase the wages and benefits that workers can claim in bankruptcy court. We’ll require companies to disclose their pension fund investments. We’ll put an end to the outrage of executives getting bonuses while workers watch pensions disappear. And we’ll make sure that no American goes bankrupt just because they get sick.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

Notice the shift from first person, to first-person plural. Makes you want to elect Obama, because of all the good you’ll be doing through him, doesn’t it?

Judgment:

Obama’s speech is filled with WEEds. (”What’s wrong with weeds?“)

WEediness Quotient: [FAQ]

7/11 = 0.6364

[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]

WEeding Winner 28 (Honorary)

[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]

“In Praise of Liberal Guilt,” by Ron Rosenbaum, Slate

Reasons for Winning:

“There are, of course, many reasons why whites might support Obama that have nothing to do with race. But what if redeeming our shameful racial past is one factor for some?” -Ron Rosenbaum

Comment:

In what sense, Mr. Rosenbaum, is your past racial? And in what sense is it shameful? How did you go about acquiring this past? Was there any way to avoid it?

“Since when has guilt become shameful? Since when is shame shameful when it’s shame about a four-centuries-long historical crime? Not one of us is a slave owner today, segregation is no longer enshrined in law, and there are fewer overt racists than before, but if we want to praise America’s virtues, we have to concede—and feel guilty about—America’s sins, else we praise a false god, a golden calf, a whited sepulcher, a Potemkin village of virtue. (I’ve run out of metaphors, but you get the picture.)” -Ron Rosenbaum

Comment:

How about just not praising the “virtues” of imaginary entities. (Have you ever seen a country? Sneaking about in the woods, perhaps?)

And since when are you supposed to feel shame about things you haven’t done. Perhaps you could lay out for me the boundaries of those things for which I should be ashamed, since evidently it has nothing to do with what I am or do.

“Guilt is good, people! The only people who don’t suffer guilt are sociopaths and serial killers. Guilt means you have a conscience. You have self-awareness, you have—in the case of America’s history of racism—historical awareness. Just because things have gotten better in the present doesn’t mean we can erase racism from our past or ignore its enduring legacy.” -Ron Rosenbaum

Comment:

Having a conscience = being aware of yourself = being aware of history? Guilt is just fine, when you’re feeling it about what you’ve done. But I didn’t do the “racism from our past” of which Mr. Rosenbaum speaks — and neither did he, I’d wager. You can’t be guilty of what you haven’t done.

Unless Mr. Rosenbaum thinks the KKK are right about present-day Jews being guilty because “their people killed Christ.” Most of us try not to think like a racists, but evidently Mr. Rosenbaum doesn’t.

“Actually, I think it requires a kind of strength, not weakness, to face the ugly truths of history and to react to them in an honest way. “Liberal guilt” isn’t a reason one must automatically support a black candidate, but that doesn’t mean that liberal guilt—better defined as an awareness of the need to contend with, and overcome, a racist past—shouldn’t be a factor in politics.” -Ron Rosenbaum

Comment:

In this quotation, Mr. Rosenbaum defines guilt away. What he describes isn’t guilt, so why he’s making the fuss he’s making becomes impossible to tell.

“But was slavery not immoral? For those conservatives who make a fetish of “values”: Was not the century of institutionalized racism and segregation that followed the end of slavery a perpetuation of “flawed values” that the nation should feel an enduring guilt over? For those conservatives who are forever speaking of the way they value history and memory more than liberals: Should we abolish the history and memory of slavery and racism just because they’re no longer legally institutionalized?” -Ron Rosenbaum

Comment:

Show me the nation that did this, and I’ll show you the nation that should be guilty.

Mr. Rosenbaum once again shows himself to be into the kind of group-reification which leads to racism and genocide.

And once more, he equates “the history and memory” of something with “guilt” over it. This is one of the effects of WEedy thinking: everything becomes personal. And when everything is personal, everything is emotional. Rational discussion becomes difficult, if not