or Powell's or me• • •
"Mike and Jon, Jon and Mike—I've known them both for years, and, clearly, one of them is very funny. As for the other: truly one of the great hangers-on of our time."—Steve Bodow, head writer, The Daily Show
•
"Who can really judge what's funny? If humor is a subjective medium, then can there be something that is really and truly hilarious? Me. This book."—Daniel Handler, author, Adverbs, and personal representative of Lemony Snicket
•
"The good news: I thought Our Kampf was consistently hilarious. The bad news: I’m the guy who wrote Monkeybone."—Sam Hamm, screenwriter, Batman, Batman Returns, and Homecoming
March 26, 2006
The Washington Post Is Really, Really Subtle
The Washington Post today published a brief excerpt of "The Israel Lobby," the new paper by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt that's been creating a predictable hoo-ha.
With it, the Post also published eight reactions. Of the eight, six excoriate the paper and two are positive. The two positive reactions are from Juan Cole and David Duke.
I think the Washington Post is trying to imply something here about the paper and Juan Cole, but the Post is doing it in such a subtle way I can't quite grasp it.
AND: Maybe the Post has hired some of the experts in rhetorical subtlety who wrote Powell's speech at the U.N.:
Most U.S. experts think [the aluminum tubes] are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium. Other experts, and the Iraqis themselves, argue that they are really to produce the rocket bodies for a conventional weapon...
BONUS: The Washington Post somehow managed not to quote this column, by Joseph Massad of Columbia:
...it is in fact the very centrality of Israel to US strategy in the Middle East that accounts, in part, for the strength of the pro-Israel lobby and not the other way around...The pro-Israel lobby could not sell its message and would not have any influence if Israel was a communist or anti-imperialist country or if Israel opposed US policy elsewhere in the world.Posted at March 26, 2006 12:53 PM | TrackBack
imho, the Post's fine subtlety will be lost on most readers too. Perhaps they can make up for this by morphing Juan Cole's visage into that of David Duke and then back again every 10 seconds in the online version of the article...
Posted by: sk at March 26, 2006 01:56 PMI realize that the Post is only quoting little bits of the criticisms of the Mearsheimer-Walt paper (at least I don't think these are the whole criticisms), but it seems that the argument they give is basically: this paper is dreadfully one-sided because it doesn't agree with our view.
This is a very handy mode of argument, which can be applied almost anywhere. E.g., Galileo's opponents: "Signore Galileo's views about the universe are garbage scholarship, because he doesn't agree with us." And so on.
Posted by: jonj at March 26, 2006 04:31 PMI see nothing subtle about it.
Of Israel, Harvard and David Duke
That says it all. There is guilt by association for the authors and Juan Cole.
Posted by: spiiderweb at March 26, 2006 06:05 PMYou could also have pointed out that the title of the story was: "Of Israel, Harvard and David Duke." Just in case the reader wasn't deft enough to notice the subtlety within the piece itself.
The Washington Post that isn't has never heard of the U.S.S. Liberty.
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Does_Liberty_matter_110703.htm
Posted by: Jesus B. Ochoa at March 27, 2006 08:24 AMGUILT BY ASSOCIATION BRIGADE. OPEN DISCUSSION IF THE DISCUSSION WILL BE CURRIED IN OUR FAVOR. THIS PAPER IS BIASED AND THESE BIASED QUOTES SHOW THE BIAS. GET IT? GOOD, UNLESS YOU ARE ANTI-SEMITIC.
Posted by: alec at March 27, 2006 04:07 PM
