Volume 5
May 25th, 2008 by micahtillman
WEeding Awards, vol.5
[<<Volume 4 | About | Winners | Records | FAQ | Volume 6>>]
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!
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:
A:
“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.
B:
“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.
C:
“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.
D:
“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.
E:
“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:
A:
“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.
B:
“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.
C:
“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?
D:
“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.
E:
“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!
F:
“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?
G:
“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:
A:
“[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.
B:
“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!
C:
“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:
A:
” 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?
B:
“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?
C:
“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.
D:
“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!
E:
“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.
F:
“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.
G:
“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?
H:
“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:
A:
“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.
B:
“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.
C:
“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:
A:
“Rich in resources, we have yet to vanquish poverty.” -Barack Obama
Comment:
Rich in resources, eh? Maybe you, Mr. Obama.
B:
“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.”
C:
“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.
D:
“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?
E:
“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?
F:
“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?
G:
“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.
H:
“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:
“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.
J:
“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?
K:
“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.
L:
“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.
M:
“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
N:
“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?
O:
“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.
P:
“[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?
Q:
“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.
R:
“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?
S:
“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.
T:
“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?
U:
“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.
V:
“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?
W:
“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.
X:
“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?
Y:
“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.
Z:
“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:
A:
“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.
B:
“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.
C:
“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?
D:
“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
Reasons for Winning:
A:
“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?” -
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?
B:
“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.)” -
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.
C:
“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.” -
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.
D:
“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.” -
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.
E:
“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?” -
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 impossible.
F:
“Do we abolish its memories and its effects? Do we abolish the very consciousness of the past and pretend we have a clear conscience? Pretend that on the question of racism, there is no problem anymore? America is impeccably virtuous?” -
Comment:
Abolishing bad effects might not be a bad idea. But thinking that what people did before me decides whether I have a clear conscience is laughable. My conscience helps me to know when something I propose to do or have done is right or wrong. And it tells me whether it would be right for me to do what someone else is doing or has done. But it is neither cleared nor dirtied by what other people have done.
And once again, Mr. Rosenbaum speaks of America as if it is a thing, in the way that racists speak of groups as if they are things, and collectivists speak of groups as if they are above persons.
G:
“A valuable essay on this question by William Hogeland in the May/June issue of the Boston Review reminds us that even Buckley felt guilt—if not precisely “liberal guilt”—about this editorial, guilt that he expressed in a 2004 Time interview. “Have you taken any positions you now regret?” Time asked him. “Yes. I once believed we could evolve our way up from Jim Crow. I was wrong: federal intervention was necessary.” Why can’t conservative wiseguys (especially at the National Review) stop sneering at liberals long enough to learn from the admirable guilty wisdom of their sainted leader?” -
Comment:
And Mr. Rosenbaum’s mind is so twisted he doesn’t even see the difference between William F. Buckley, Jr.’s feeling guilt over something he personally wrote, and what Mr. Rosenbaum wants us all to do: feel guilty for things we haven’t done.
The inability to understand how a person comes to be responsible for something which Mr. Rosenbaum shows is not only sad, but dangerous. It is such confusions that lead to blood-feuds, hate crimes, concentration camps, etc.
H:
“Or could it be that conservatives disdain liberal guilt about race because they have historically more guilt to bear for the perpetuation of racism and segregation?” -Ron Rosenbaum
Comment:
If I can bear “historical . . . guilt” because of some ideological group I have joined by my way of thinking, can I absolve myself of that guilt by ceasing to think that way? Perhaps I could just join the liberals?
And that someone can talk about bearing historical guilt without noticing that this is exactly the same thinking that antisemites use to justify their hatred of Jews is shocking.
I:
“I’m not talking about Republicans per se. The fact that the GOP was the party of Lincoln and most strongly supported anti-lynching and anti-Jim Crow legislation in the first half of the 20th century is to its eternal credit, just as the “Southern strategy” was much to its discredit in the second half of the century.” -
Comment:
And so you can get credit or discredit simply by checking a box on your voter registration card? Could you just forget about both by registering independent?
J:
“No, it’s not a Democrat or Republican issue; it’s a liberal and conservative issue. And there are those on the conservative side who understand that the first step to justice is an acknowledgment of guilt.” -
Comment:
And that may well be true. But the way that Mr. Rosenbaum has defined “guilt” in this article, it’s difficult to tell what he means by “acknowledgment of guilt.” If he means what everyone else means by that phrase, he’d also have to agree that guilt entails responsibility.
And the first step to justice is a correct understanding of responsibility, which Mr. Rosenbaum doesn’t have.
K:
“They willfully ignore, in their rote denunciations of the sex, drugs, and rock ‘n’ roll aspect of that decade, the great movement of moralists known as the civil rights movement. The movement that brought deserved honor and pride to America. The movement that may well have been motivated (among whites participating) by liberal guilt. But so what! The guilt was justified. The truly guilty were the ones who didn’t feel guilt. Such as the conservative movement of the day that largely stood on the sidelines making carping augments about states’ rights that were a shamelessly transparent defense of institutionalized racism. Where’s the conservative guilt about that? No wonder they ignore the civil rights movement, one of the great epochs in American history, when they demonize “the ’60s.”" -
Comment:
Once again: why should we be proud of something we didn’t do? And what is America that it can have honor and pride? (Unicorns are just as real as America, but they’d don’t get either honor or pride.)
Notice how Mr. Rosenbaum thinks the white civil rights activists during the 60’s were guilty.
And notice the sentence: “The truly guilty were the ones who didn’t feel guilt.” Sound familiar?
Where’s the conservative guilt over bad things conservatives have done? You only are guilty for what you do, and therefore you should only feel guilty for what you do. There are other emotions for things other people do.
When a conservative does something wrong, hopefully that conservative feels guilt. When a conservative sees someone else doing something wrong, her or his first reaction is not usually guilt. Anger, perhaps. Sadness, perhaps.
L:
“As a Jew, I think I have a right to be angry, still, about the Holocaust, even though it happened before I was born. It would be hard for me to understand an African-American not being angry about 400 years of murder, rape, and enslavement on the basis of race. Anger, like guilt, shouldn’t be the endpoint, but anger at injustice is not illegitimate and can be a starting point, a spur to moral action.” -Ron Rosenbaum
Comment:
Perhaps you do have that right. But at whom are you angry, Mr. Rosenbaum? And anger is not guilt. The former you can feel both at yourself and at other, at what you’ve done and at what others have done. But you can only feel the latter about yourself and what you’ve done.
You don’t really want to be taking responsibility for things you haven’t done, labeling yourself guilty to things you haven’t done, do you? Especially not when it was just this attitude which created the Holocaust in the first place! Blaming people for what they haven’t done is not something to take lightly.
M:
“People who lack guilt also lack humility, which is another one of those virtues conservatives are always flogging (although not with a lot of humility).” -
Comment:
N:
“What’s so great about being “great” if it depends on historical ignorance or denial? Again, to love America truly, one has to love the America that is and was, not a fantasy America free from flaws.” -Ron Rosenbaum
Comment:
Some of us don’t thin we’re great or not great depending on the group(s) we happen to have been born in. And some of us try very hard not to love imaginary objects (which America is).
P:
“To be a truly “great American,” one doesn’t have to be a guilty liberal, but one has to know guilt.” -Ron Rosenbaum
Comment:
Because we’re all imperfect, or because certain groups are worse than others?
Judgment:
This article while containing no WEeds, is evidence of the kind of thinking which WEeds produce. (”What’s wrong with weeds?“) I hope it will be enough to scare people out of going down the WEedy path in the first place.
WEediness Quotient: [FAQ]
N/A
[<<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 4 | About | Winners | Records | FAQ | Volume 6>>]
[...] [<<prev. | top | contents | next>>] [ A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I ] [...]
[...] This is essentially version 2.0 of the speech which won WEedy 27. [...]