Volume 4
May 18th, 2008 by micahtillman
WEeding Awards, vol.4
[<<Volume 3 | About | Winners | Records | FAQ | Volume 5>>]
Prologue
This week’s WEeding Awards begin and end with pundits loathing you and me (and themselves) for our international failures. One pundit’s conservative, the other progressive. (Perhaps we should take up a collection for them, seeing as they seem to be so down.)
It’s second and third winners advocate that you invade Myanmar, and then stick around to clean up afterwards. Hope you can find room in your schedule.
Then come two pieces — one by a progressive, the other by a conservative — criticizing you for how you’ve either made the Democrats’ race racist, or introduced some truly terrible food and agriculture policies.
Why won’t you stop being so horribly awful!?!
This week, the record for number of WEedy sentences is broken. Twice.
And Michael Hirsh, who wrote the WEeding Awards’ inaugural winner, returns.
Enjoy! [Click on an article's title or WEedy Number below to jump to its individual announcement/explanation.]
15: “Enabling Hezbollah,” by Ralph Peters, New York Post
16: “Aid at the Point of a Gun,” by Robert Kaplan, New York Times
17: “Should Burma Be Saved from Itself?,” by George Packer, New Yorker
18: “The Race Perplex,” by Howard Fineman, Newsweek
19: “The Indianapolis Star,” by David Freddoso, NRO’s “The Corner” blog
20: “An Unnatural Disaster,” by Michael Hirsh, Newsweek
WEeding Winner15
[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]
“Enabling Hezbollah,” by Ralph Peters, New York Post
Reasons for Winning:
A:
“When will we face reality? Hezbollah can’t be appeased.” -Ralph Peters
B:
“But we - Israel, the United States, Europe - lack the will.” -Ralph Peters
C:
“We won’t. We still think we can talk our way out of a hit job. Not only are we reluctant to kill those bent on killing us - we don’t even want to offend them.” -Ralph Peters
D:
“Exactly how many al Qaeda members have we converted to secular humanism?” -Ralph Peters
E:
“Entranced by the military vogue of the season, we don’t even get our terminology right.” -Ralph Peters
F:
“But we’re not going to do it [destroy Hezbollah]. And Israel’s not going to do it. We both lack the vision, the guts, the strength of will.” -Ralph Peters
G:
“We lack the strength of will to do this right.” -Ralph Peters
H:
“We rely on that fatal narcotic, diplomacy, as Lebanon shatters and our enemies pick up the pieces.” -Ralph Peters
I:
“We’re not Hezbollah’s enemies. We’re its enablers.” -Ralph Peters
Comments:
It is more than clear from the anger and desperation in Mr. Peter’s writing that even though he speaks in the first person about not facing reality, not having the will to act, being deceived about how to handle the situation, etc., he believes none of these things are true of himself. In other words, the above instances of the first-person plural are WEeds.
So why does he write in the first person? I believe Mr. Peters to be guilty of problem 2 from the list of what’s wrong with weeds. He uses the first-person plural out of moral cowardice. Rather than speaking directly and explicitly at each point about who is in the wrong, he attempts to save himself from being criticized in return by appearing to include himself among those whom he is criticizing.
Since he feels so strongly about the issue, and has let himself be as emotionally violent in this piece as he has, it is understandable that he would want to tone things down a little to save face. But if the issue is as serious as he thinks it is, then it deserves to be treated with clarity and precision.
Unfortunately, Mr. Peters’ use of WEeds also leads him to despair, a perfect example of problem 3 from the list of what’s wrong with weeds.
Maybe a friend will introduce him to the WEeding Awards. He needs the help.
WEediness Quotient: [FAQ]
12/5 = 2.4 [A new record for number of WEedy sentences!]
[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]
WEeding Winner16
[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]
“Aid at the Point of a Gun,” by Robert Kaplan, New York Times
Reasons for Winning:
A:
“Because oceans are vast and even warships travel comparatively slowly, one should not underestimate the advantage that fate has once again handed us. For example, a carrier strike group, or even a smaller Marine-dominated expeditionary strike group headed by an amphibious ship, could get close to shore and ferry troops and supplies to the most devastated areas on land.” -Robert Kaplan
B:
“We could do a lot of good merely by holding out the possibility of an invasion.” -Robert Kaplan
C:
“The other challenge we face lies within Myanmar. Because a humanitarian invasion could ultimately lead to the regime’s collapse, we would have to accept significant responsibility for the aftermath.” -Robert Kaplan
D:
“But liberating Iraq from an Arab Stalin also seemed simple and moral. (And it might have been, had we planned for the aftermath.)” -Robert Kaplan
E:
“Sending in marines and sailors is the easy part; but make no mistake, the very act of our invasion could land us with the responsibility for fixing Burma afterward.” -Robert Kaplan
Comments:
Here we have another example of a situation which the author believes is vastly important, and yet which gets treated sloppily. The amount of unnoticed hypocrisy in WEeding Award winners is often disturbing.
Mr. Kaplan believes that “fate” has “handed” an “advantage” to “us,” and that we should strike militarily.
And yet there you sit in front of your computer. Why aren’t you getting your helmet and machine gun? You won’t be ready when Mr. Kaplan gives the order for “us” to attack!
He then goes on to suggest that it would be good for you to threaten to invade Myanmar, and criticizes you for not planning better for Iraq.
And he really hopes that you’ll take responsibility for your actions in Burma, once you follow his advice.
The crises of the world require clarity, but Mr. Kaplan is emotionally obscuring the current situation in Myanmar through his WEEdy writing. (”What’s wrong with weeds?“)
WEediness Quotient: [FAQ]
6/1 = 6
[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]
WEeding Winner 17
[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]
“Should Burma Be Saved from Itself?,” by George Packer, New Yorker
Reasons for Winning:
A:
“[Robert Kaplan] rightly points out that we would need to intervene in a coalition with other countries, and that the political repercussions in Burma are unpredictable and possibly drastic.” -George Packer
B:
“On the other hand, if it’s going to be done, it should be done quickly. I know all the arguments why we shouldn’t. But there are at least a million counterarguments why we should.” -George Packer
Comments:
Mr. Packer hopes that before you follow Mr. Kaplan’s advice, that you’ve been on the phone with your friends in other countries, getting them to agree to quit their jobs so you won’t have to invade Myanmar alone.
Unfortunately, even though Mr. Packer wants you to drop what you’re doing and go invade as soon as you can get things coordinated, he’s not going to tell you his “million counterarguments why we should.”
Which is unfortunate, because invading another country is a big step for a person, and “we” could use all the help “we” can get in deciding whether or not to go through with it.
Perhaps Messrs. Kaplan and Packer could get together and do some WEeding. (”What’s wrong with weeds?“)
WEediness Quotient: [FAQ]
3/1 = 3
[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]
WEeding Winner 18
[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]
“The Race Perplex,” by Howard Fineman, Newsweek
Reasons for Winning:
A:
“He was making a statement: that his candidacy would be the exclamation point at the end of our four-century-long argument over the role of African-Americans in our society.” -Howard Fineman
B:
“Well, that argument did not end. [Obama] and we were naive to think it would.” -Howard Fineman
C:
“Who made the campaign this way? We are all at fault, especially voters who are admitting that race matters.” -Howard Fineman
Comments:
I wasn’t born 400 years ago, so how I could be the owner of a “four-century-long argument’ is unclear to me. I couldn’t have been a participant in it for its whole time. And I don’t recall ever participating in it during my current lifetime. Maybe I just haven’t met any racists who were vocal enough to actually get into an argument with me on the subject.
Perhaps Mr. Fineman things I inherited it? But from whom? And if I did inherit it, is there any way I could just take the side of the argument that says, “Personhood is not dependent on race?” I don’t want the other side.
The way Mr. Fineman talks, you would think that American life is filled with constantly debating racists. The great American past-time is beating back the racist hoards, evidently. Is that what your life is like?
Then, after confusing me with all of that, Mr. Fineman calls me naive. That’s not very nice. Not very nice at all.
And then he accuses me of making the Democrats’ campaign racial.
This is the type of situation in which one wants to say, “Wait. What?! Did you just say what I think you said?”
Maybe Mr. Fineman wouldn’t feel like the naive race-baiter he accuses himself of being if he would WEed his writing. (”What’s wrong with weeds?“)
WEediness Quotient: [FAQ]
3/9 = 0.333…
[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]
WEeding Winner 19
[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]
“The Indianapolis Star,” by David Freddoso, NRO’s “The Corner” blog
Reasons for Winning:
A:
Even as we have made food prices sky-high by correlating the corn and petroleum markets with our biofuel subsidies, we continue to hold the poorest countries back from developing beyond subsistence agriculture by flooding their markets with free American grain (and we’re going to make taxpayers pay the inflated price of that grain, by the way). So they get to suffer from high prices without benefiting from them. At least we could be buying their grain, which would encourage them to produce more of it. Instead we do the opposite. -David Freddoso
B:
“Today, decades later, we lack even the political will to abolish the most insane programs we have — such as the one that actually pays non-farmers who live on former farmland.” -David Freddoso
Comments:
Who wins this week for most angry at himself, do you think? Peters, Fineman, or Freddoso?
One wants to ask Mr. Freddoso, “Why are you doing all these terrible things?!?” And this is not the first time Mr. Freddoso has gone WEedy. (”What’s wrong with weeds?“) Take a gander at this post from earlier this year.
Wow.
Do you ever wonder what it’s like to live in such a WEedy world? How would you keep track of who you are, where you end and the government begins, of whether you have any identity other than that which your society gives you?
WEediness Quotient: [FAQ]
4/5 = 0.8
[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]
WEeding Winner 20
[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]
“An Unnatural Disaster,” by Michael Hirsh, Newsweek
Reasons for Winning:
A:
“As other countries around the world partook of the ideas we pressed on them in the post-cold war era—free markets, democracy—they started to prosper and catch up to us. Meanwhile we grew fatter (literally) and more spoiled.” -Michael Hirsh
B:
“Junk legal reasoning by White House and Justice Department lawyers was used to publicly justify torture, decimating our once high moral stature around the world.” -Michael Hirsh
C:
“The fallout from the subprime debacle and budget imbalance has cost us as much prestige in the economic sphere as Iraq has cost us in the foreign policy arena.” -Michael Hirsh
D:
“But what was most unnatural of all about what we Americans did to ourselves was that we missed the grand opportunity staring us in the face.” -Michael Hirsh
E:
“Indeed, there is not a government anywhere in the world—not even the Muslim countries—that wasn’t hoping we’d clean out Afghanistan, that last refuge of Al Qaeda.” -Michael Hirsh
F:
“But contrary to what you might hear, it was possible, had we stayed focused. The Afghans themselves, in stark contrast to the pent-up Iraqis, were so desperately tired of 23 years of civil war that most of them welcomed us with open arms, with virtually every warlord on sale at knockdown prices.” -Michael Hirsh
G:
“What an exercise in the judicious use of our great power that would have been, and what a trophy to place on the shelf after Germany and Japan following World War II!” -Michael Hirsh
H:
“I have spoken to many foreign diplomats and officials in recent years, and I have found almost none who embrace Bush’s strategic conception of Iraq as an integral part of the war on terror. Just as most reject the blame that Washington is now directing at NATO for Afghanistan. We and the rest of the world are talking past each other.” -Michael Hirsh
I:
“Yet our pundits are out there sagely arguing that the anti-Americanism in the world and the chaos in Afghanistan are mostly “natural” or “inevitable” phenomena too.” -Michael Hirsh
J:
“Had we handled things right, what is now deemed American “decline” could have played out very differently.” -Michael Hirsh
K:
“And we won’t know for a long time whether the next president can begin the titanic task of raising us up again. All is hardly lost: despite the rise of China and India, and Russia’s rumblings, there is still no credible rival to superpower status. But let’s not kid ourselves about the cause of our problems.” -Michael Hirsh
Comments:
Mr. Hirsh returns in excellent form. The WEediness has never been greater. (”What’s wrong with weeds?“) I am overwhelmed just thinking of having to summarize it all.
Notice in the first quotation how you have been “pres[sing]” “ideas” on other countries, while getting fat and “spoiled.” And all the while you’ve been losing your “moral stature.” Did you notice? Of course you didn’t, because you messed up so badly after 9/11, it’s obvious that you’re not the kind of person who would be self-aware enough to notice that kind of thing.
And even if you had noticed, you’re so busy squandering “[y]our great power” and taking your eye off the ball in Afghanistan, that you’d prove completely incompetent.
While you’re at it, take a look at the lovely H, in which Mr. Hirsh can’t keep straight whether it’s Bush or “we” who are talking crazy. Does this happen to you often? Confusing yourself with the President of the United States? If so, how much time do they give you a day on the internet in your particular asylum?
Then there’s I. Does Mr. Hirsh not consider himself a pundit?
But J and K are the best of all. There I learn that not only is Mr. Hirsh responsible for the downfall of America (that is, he’s ruining everyone else’s lives through his failed policies in Afghanistan and the Middle East, and on the economy), but that he has to wait for the next president to “rais[e] [him] up again.”
In other words, he accuses himself of being both evil and pathetic. And yet he still wants us to listen to him. What a sad, sad little man — if you take his word for it.
WEediness Quotient: [FAQ]
14/10 = 1.4 [Another new record for number of WEedy sentences!]
[<<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!
[<<Volume 3 | About | Winners | Records | FAQ | Volume 5>>]
[...] writing a WEedy-winning piece last week, Ralph Peters has a new piece up about the success of American and Iraqi troops in [...]
[...] Comments « Volume 4 [...]