The WEeding Awards

Volume 9

micahtillman — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 16:16:07 +0000

WEeding Awards, vol.9

WEeding Winner 43

[< | top | contents | next>>]

David Frum’s post “Bailout” wins this week’s WEeding Award

Reasons for Winning:

We all created this mess together; we’re going to have to work our way out of it together.

Comment:

To Frum’s credit, he has posted a well-stated rebuttal e-mail from one of his readers here.

Judgment:

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

[< | 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 8

micahtillman — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 13:19:03 +0000

WEeding Awards, vol. 8

Prologue

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

Contents

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

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

WEeding Winner 39

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

WEeding Winner 40

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

WEeding Winner 41

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

WEeding Winner 42

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

Call for Nominations

Thanks!

Volume 7

micahtillman — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 12:00:52 +0000

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

WEeding Winner 36

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

Nomination Victory Speech, by Barack Obama

Reasons for Winning:

“At this defining moment for our nation, we should be proud that our party put forth one of the most talented, qualified field of individuals ever to run for this office.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

Why exactly is that? If I were a Democrat, what role would I have played in “our party['s] put[ting] forth one of the most talented, qualified field of individuals ever to run for [president]“? Are all Democrats party operatives?

And if the average Democrat didn’t have anything to do with who decided to run for President for their party, why should she feel proud? Can we just pick random things to be proud of now?

I think I’ll be proud of that leaf over there.

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

“When we transform our energy policy and lift our children out of poverty, it will be because [Hillary Clinton] worked to help make it happen.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

Not only is every Democrat a party operative, evidently, but every democrat is also working on energy policy. And every Democrat’s children are in poverty. (Which is no wonder. Political parties aren’t businesses. They don’t generate a product they can sell. They survive only on donations. So Democrats must not get paid very much.)

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

“You did it because you know in your hearts that at this moment - a moment that will define a generation - we cannot afford to keep doing what we’ve been doing. We owe our children a better future. We owe our country a better future.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

So, what have we learned so far? Barack Obama thinks of his fellow Democrats as party operatives, energy policy wonks, and deadbeat parents. And he thinks his fellow Democrats have finally realized they can’t keep living this way; they “cannot afford to keep doing what [they]‘ve been doing.” They need to stop raising their children in poverty, and stop keeping our country from having a better future.

And even after getting insulted like that, there are Democrats who still want to elect Obama.

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

“And it’s not change when [John McCain] promises to continue . . . a policy where all we look for are reasons to stay in Iraq, while we spend billions of dollars a month on a war that isn’t making the American people any safer.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

A startling admission from a person who would be President. He lets other people’s policies determine what he “look[s] for” and how much he “spend[s].” Some would think letting other people run your life like this is a sign of weakness.

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

“We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in - but start leaving we must.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

Where have I heard that one before?

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

“It’s time to rebuild our military and give our veterans the care they need and the benefits they deserve when they come home. It’s time to refocus our efforts on al Qaeda’s leadership and Afghanistan, and rally the world against the common threats of the 21st century - terrorism and nuclear weapons; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease. That’s what change is.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

Even if Democrats take Obama’s advice and stop being party operatives, energy policy wonks, and deadbeat parents, will they have time to start being military officials, military health workers, military benefits providers, anti-al-Qaeda military strategists, experts and world leaders on “terrorism and nuclear weapons; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease”?

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

“We must once again have the courage and conviction to lead the free world.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

Evidently Democrats have been both afraid and wishy-washy on this point.

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

“Maybe if [John McCain] went to Iowa and met the student who works the night shift after a full day of class and still can’t pay the medical bills for a sister who’s ill, he’d understand that she can’t afford four more years of a health care plan that only takes care of the healthy and wealthy. She needs us to pass health care plan that guarantees insurance to every American who wants it and brings down premiums for every family who needs it. That’s the change we need.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

And not only is every Democrat a party operative, but every Democrat is a member of Congress, and can “pass an energy policy . . . .”

And if “the change we need” is for all Democrats to join Congress, we’re going to have to wait a while. Some Constitutional amendments will be required.

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

“Maybe if he went to Pennsylvania and met the man who lost his job but can’t even afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one, he’d understand that we can’t afford four more years of our addiction to oil from dictators. That man needs us to pass an energy policy that works with automakers to raise fuel standards, and makes corporations pay for their pollution, and oil companies invest their record profits in a clean energy future - an energy policy that will create millions of new jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced. That’s the change we need.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

Isn’t one of the first rules of public speaking to know your audience? Does Obama realize he’s not speaking to Congress?

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

“And maybe if [McCain] spent some time in the schools of South Carolina or St. Paul or where he spoke tonight in New Orleans, he’d understand that we can’t afford to leave the money behind for No Child Left Behind; that we owe it to our children to invest in early childhood education; to recruit an army of new teachers and give them better pay and more support; to finally decide that in this global economy, the chance to get a college education should not be a privilege for the wealthy few, but the birthright of every American. That’s the change we need in America. That’s why I’m running for President.” -Roy Spencer

Comment:

More insults directed at his fellow Democrats:

They’re refusing to fund No Child Left Behind (a bill written by Ted Kennedy, one of their own, right?).

They aren’t “invest[ing] in early childhood education.

They aren’t paying their teachers what they deserve.

They aren’t funding everyone’s college education.

Now I know why I’m not a Democrat. I’m glad Obama warned me away.

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

“Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment - this was the time - when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals.” -Barack Obama

Comment:

Democrats, says Obama, don’t “care for the sick,” they refuse to give “good jobs to the jobless.” They’ve been holding out on lowering the oceans and healing the planet. They’ve neglected to stop the Iraq war, to secure the country, to fix “our image.”

After the laundry-list of failures which Obama attributes to himself and his audience, I wonder what the “very best selves, and . . . highest ideals” he’s referring to are. Evidently, Obama thinks that Democrats are a pretty sad lot.

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

Judgment:

And I thought Rush Limbaugh was the one who didn’t like Democrats. His moral cowardice on full display, Obama delivers yet another speech full of WEeds. (”What’s wrong with weeds?“)

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

WEeding Winner 37

[< | top | contents | next>>]
[ A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O ]

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

Reasons for Winning:

“They see the United States as the savior of the ordinary Iraqis who survived Saddam Hussein only to be victimized by violent extremists. We certainly have made some sacrifices on their behalf, including more than 4,000 troops killed in the war and hundreds of billions of dollars spent on it.” -Steve Chapman

Comment:

Which sacrifices have “we” made again? In what way were the death’s of 4,000 troops our sacrifices? And our taxes haven’t gone up, so how are the “hundreds of billions of dollars spent on” the Iraq war our sacrifices?

[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O ]

“In light of the improvement in security over the last year, you would expect most Iraqis to have a new appreciation for our efforts.” -Steve Chapman

Comment:

Only if you think Iraqis are collectivists. Neither Mr. Chapman nor you nor I have made any “efforts” in Iraq, so we shouldn’t expect them “to have a new appreciation” for said non-existent efforts.

[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O ]

“Americans spend a lot of time debating the question of whether we should remain in Iraq.” -Steve Chapman

Comment:

Ah, so Mr. Chapman does think the Iraqis are collectivists.

[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O ]

“What never seems to occur to us is to ask the Iraqis the same question.” -Steve Chapman

Comment:

This question has never ocured to Mr. Chapman, and yet he writes about it not occurring to him?

[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O ]

“We ought to endorse that approach, asking the government to let Iraqis vote on whether we should stay or go.” -Steve Chapman

Comment:

How can we ask our government to ask their government whether “we should stay or go,” when we aren’t there?

[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O ]

“The U.S. went into Iraq five years ago to liberate the country from a tyrant.” -Steve Chapman

Comment:

Ah, America. That mythic beast. How exactly did “it” go into Iraq?

[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O ]

“We have made war on al-Qaida in Iraq, whose tactics managed to alienate even their Sunni allies.” -Steve Chapman

Comment:

Mr. Chapman is evidently one of those pundits who’s also in the armed forces. Writing and making war at the same time. Perhaps he can tell us whether the pin really is mightier than the sword, since he works with both.

[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O ]

“Lately, we’ve also established comparative tranquility.” -Steve Chapman

Comment:

We have? Thank goodness! I was under the impression that we had been surfing the internet, reading articles, writing blog posts, going to work, sleeping, etc.

[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O ]

“If there was ever a time when Iraqis could calmly and peacefully weigh in on our presence, it’s now.” -Steve Chapman

Comment:

So, Mr. Chapman thinks Iraqis should decide whether he’s allowed to remain present wherever he happens to be at the moment. And whether you’re allowed to remain wherever you are at the moment.

[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O ]

“Every major group has obvious grounds to want us around. We facilitated elections that let the Shiites gain dominance, allowed the Kurds to maintain their autonomy in northern Iraq, and brought Sunni militias over to our side. In short, we’ve done something for everyone.” -Steve Chapman

Comment:

And it just keeps going . . . . This kind of collectivist thinking is not something you expect in a libertarian publication like Reason.

[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O ]

“Yet all indications are that Iraqis can unite behind only one proposition: Yankee, go home! If that’s the case—or even if it’s not—how can we justify not letting them express their preference?” -Steve Chapman

Comment:

Here Mr. Chapman accuses himself of trying to “justify not letting [the Iraqis] express their preference.”

[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O ]

“How can we say that the people we have tried to bless with democracy should be denied a democratic means of resolving the issue?” -Steve Chapman

Comment:

I don’t know, Mr. Chapman. How can you say that to them after you’ve “tried to bless [them] with democracy”?

[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O ]

“And why on earth should we mind?” -Steve Chapman

Comment:

Who’s minding? Mr. Chapman isn’t. Why’d he put it in the first person then?

[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O ]

“The first is that Iraqis would make it clear they don’t want us around anymore and are ready to take over full responsibility for their own affairs. In that case, we can hit the exits with a clear conscience.” -Steve Chapman

Comment:

It would be nice to leave Iraq. Especially for those of us who aren’t ther. . . . Wait a minute!

[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O ]

“The second is that they would have a sudden change of heart, realize they can’t manage without us and ask us to stay.” -Steve Chapman

Comment:

It is nice to know Mr. Chapman doesn’t want to overstay his welcome. Very conscientious.

[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O ]

Judgment:

A fascinating study in WEedy confusion. (”What’s wrong with weeds?“)

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

Call for Nominations

Thanks!

Volume 6

micahtillman — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 12:00:39 +0000

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

WEeding Winner 29

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

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

Reasons for Winning:

“Although we shudder at the thought of such barbaric practices, I believe that we have unwittingly reinstituted human sacrifice in modern times. But while the list of justifications has grown immensely, our new rituals are still performed in the name of avoiding the wrath of the gods of nature.” -Roy Spencer

Comment:

The question one wants to ask, then, is, “Is this going to be Mr. Spencer’s letter of repentance, or is he really talking in the first-person plural about something he would never dare do?”

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

“Our environmental protection practices have already caused the deaths of millions of people, mainly in poor African countries.” -Roy Spencer

Comment:

Wow. Really? Why would we do such a thing?

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

“Since we now have the scientific method, we rely on computer models to predict these future catastrophes rather than on our fears and prejudices. While this gives the illusion of modern objective precision, the truth is that all we have done is enlisted one of our modern idols — the computer — to justify what we want to believe anyway.” -Roy Spencer

Comment:

First, what a sweet possession that scientific method is, which all of us have. I wonder, did you remember to list “the Scientific Method” among your valuables for home insurance purposes?

Second, how does having the scientific method (observe, hypothesize, experiment, observe, revise, hypothesize, experiment, observe, revise, hypothesize, etc.) lead us to rely on computer models?

Third, do you think, in fact, that Mr. Spencer relies on computer models “to predict . . . future catastrophes”?

Fourth, the final sentence of C is simply too unbelievable. There is no way Mr. Spencer sees himself as a member of the group which uses “modern idols . . . to justify what [he] want[s] to believe anyway.”

It’s really hard to take someone seriously when he doesn’t take the very things he says seriously. (Even when you are like me, and actually agree with him, sans the WEeds.)

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

“But we also know that the Martian atmosphere has 15 times as much CO2 as our own atmosphere, and its surface temperature averages about 70 deg. F below zero.” -Roy Spencer

Comment:

That was news to me. Did you know that?

Who’s the “we” who knew this, then?

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

“Why do we love to believe that mankind is a plague upon the Earth? We view anything and everything that happens in nature, no matter how barbaric, bloody, or destructive, as good.” -Roy Spencer

Comment:

That is a question. Why do you love to believe that mankind is a plague upon the Earth, Mr. Spencer? Why do you view anything and everything that happens in nature, no matter how barbaric, bloody, or destructive, as good?

Obviously you don’t.

But you said you did.

Why, Mr. Spencer? Why?

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

“If a volcano like Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines dumps millions of tons of sulfur into the stratosphere, cooling the Earth for two or three years, this is simply Mother Nature at work. If humans did it, we would call it an environmental catastrophe.” -Roy Spencer

Comment:

Or rather, Mr. Spencer wouldn’t, but other people would. He just doesn’t want to be too offensive to the people he thinks are terrible, and therefore tries to paint himself as one of them to make it look like he’s being humble. (See, FAQ)

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

“And now we are teaching our children to perform their own acts of worship, again hoping to placate the gods of the natural world. Substituting compact fluorescent light bulbs for incandescent ones, and turning the light off when they leave the room, makes them feel good about themselves and their relationship to nature. These rituals being taught in the public schools will help define their still-developing worldviews and religious beliefs.” -Roy Spencer

Comment:

Congratulations on your new job! Evidently we’re all public school teachers teaching our own children to become Environment Worshipers.

I wonder how soon Mr. Spencer is going to get fired from his teaching post, after his principal reads his article.

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

“We are already causing a food crisis around the world by converting food, such as corn, into liquid fuels for transportation. Now, with the Climate Security Act, we will also be causing additional turmoil at home as the poor struggle to survive in a world where only the middle class and wealthy can afford to live relatively comfortably.” -Roy Spencer

Comment:

And now he’s accusing his fellow public school teachers of Crimes Against Humanity! He is so fired!

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

“We will, in effect, be sacrificing even more humans at the altar of radical environmentalism in the vain hope that the gods in charge of weather and climate will look favorably upon us, and not destroy us.” -Roy Spencer

Comment:

And if only Mr. Spencer had identified the real culprits, instead of spreading the blame around with his WEeds. How are you supposed to stop yourself from committing murder if you’re not the one committing murder?! If there are people who need to be brought up on charges, Mr. Spencer, tell us who they are so we can . . . I don’t know. What is it exactly you want us to do?

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

Judgment:

Mr. Spencer’s piece is vitally important. I think he’s correct on every count — if you ignore the WEeds. (”What’s wrong with weeds?“) But since I count thirteen WEedy sentences in Mr. Spencer’s piece, it deserves a WEedy.

WEediness Quotient: [FAQ]

13/5 = 2.6

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

WEeding Winner 30

[< | top | contents | next>>]
[ A ]

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

Reasons for Winning:

“We’ll soon find out if the senators who were choked up last week at the prospect of losing their beloved colleague will be ready to get serious about cancer. Think we’re already spending enough? Jordan sent me an e-mail toting up how we spend more in six months in Iraq ($54 billion) than we’ve spent in 30 years on the National Cancer Institute, which funds most cancer research. Today, only two in 10 grant proposals from qualified researchers are funded by the NCI, which means that plenty of possible cures die for lack of funding.” -Jonathan Alter

Comment:

Actually, Mr. Alter, I hadn’t considered how much money you were spending on cancer research. Do you think you’re spending enough? Hearing how much you’re spending “in Iraq” compared to how much you’ve “spent in 30 years on the National Cancer Institute” makes me think you must be not a little disappointed with yourself.

Maybe you should think about not giving so much to Iraq so you can give more to the NCI (so they can take on those other 8 in 10 grant proposals).

[Post More Comments] [ A ]

Judgment:

Such an important issue! Such a sad submission of self to government. As if “we” are “them,” and have no other options. Only two WEedy sentences, but that’s enough to earn this piece a WEedy. (”What’s wrong with weeds?“)

WEediness Quotient: [FAQ]

2/3 = 0.66666…

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

WEeding Winner 31

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

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

Reasons for Winning:

“Here is how our baby-boom generation solves problems:” -Victor Davis Hanson

Comment:

An entire generation solves problems? Isn’t it mildly shocking to hear a conservative talking like a collectivist? Almost Borg-like.

This isn’t a WEedy sentence, because the instance of the first-person plural in it is legitimate. But the group-reification (a consequence of WEedy thinking) would automatically make this article eligible for a “Groupy” (if such an award existed).

(If you were wondering, Dr. Hanson should have said, “Here is the way many members of our baby-boom generation tend to solve problems:”)

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

“When the bubble inevitably burst, cries of outrage followed about how “they” (never “we”) caused a “depression” in housing. Our leaders shrieked about greedy lenders and incompetent regulators who foreclosed on us — never that the American people themselves caused much of the speculation problem, or that housing prices are finally becoming affordable again for new couples.” -Victor Davis Hanson

Comment:

There are some fascinating things going on here. Notice how Dr. Hanson focuses on the first- and third-person plurals, arguing that the former would have been more proper.

But then he goes on to claim “the American people themselves caused much of the speculation problem.” We’re all real estate speculators to Mr. Hanson? Surely he doesn’t believe this. I, for one, am not a real estate speculator, and don’t think I’ve ever met one.

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

“Over 70 percent of the American people, and a majority of Democratic senators, wanted to remove Saddam Hussein — overwhelming support for the administration’s war that rose even higher as a brilliant campaign finished off the Baathists in three weeks.

“But when a messy insurgency erupted, suddenly we heard that our victory was ruined by “their stupid occupation.”" -Victor Davis Hanson

Comment:

Once again, Dr. Hanson is focusing on the shifting of “person” in pluralized pronouns. He says the the Baby Boomers (at least) wanted the Iraq War at first, only to divest themselves of it, calling it “their . . . occupation.”

And yet Dr. Hanson speaks of “the administration’s war” as leading to “our victory”! He wasn’t there fighting, and yet he claims it as his own.

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

“What are the baby boomers’ collective traits? Like all perpetual adolescents who suffer arrested development, we always want things both ways: Don’t drill or explore for more energy, but nevertheless demand ever more fuel from other suppliers.” -Victor Davis Hanson

Comment:

Did I mention this was a conservative talking? “Collective traits”!?! And even though he does not share these traits (he is criticizing them), he speaks in the first person about them.

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

“When things don’t go well, we always blame someone else. Why drill off Santa Barbara or Alaska when we can sue those terrible Saudis for not putting more oil platforms in their Persian Gulf?” -Victor Davis Hanson

Comment:

You do, Dr. Hanson? You always blame someone else? And you can sue the Saudis? Really? In what court will you be filing?

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

“And in our self-absorption, no one accepted that our notorious appetites created more problems than our supposed “caring” solved.” -Victor Davis Hanson

Comment:

In this part of the article, Dr. Hanson is doing some excellent critiquing of how some people think about themselves (using the first person). And yet he falls into the same trap of being focussed on “we.” Clearly Dr. Hanson does not believe himself to be self-absorbed, nor does he believe himself to have a “notorious appetite,” nor does he think himself to have merely cared in a “supposed” way. But he talks in the first person about each.

And he has “accepted that . . . notorious appetites create[] more problems than . . . supposed ‘caring’ solved.” Yet he speaks as if he hadn’t.

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

“The fault of this age, dear baby boomers, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.” -Victor Davis Hanson

Comment:

After saying, in the paragraph previous to this sentence, that “the anonymous ‘they’” were not to blame for various problems, Dr. Hanson goes on to blame himself for things he clearly does not believe himself to have caused.

So much wasted potential for clarity!

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

Judgment:

If this article were WEeded, it would be an excellent piece. It says much of importance. (”What’s wrong with weeds?“)

WEediness Quotient: [FAQ]

7/10 = 0.7

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

WEeding Winner 32

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

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

Reasons for Winning:

“However, since the sexual revolution of the 1960s, we have increased the number of broken families producing damaged children, and these damaged children have burdened both the size and cost of the welfare state.” -Frank Pastore

Comment:

You have, Mr. Pastore? Why have you been doing that? Why?

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

“Our social problems are not due to a lack of spending, but to a lack of moral values. The answer to our social and economic problems is not to grow a bigger welfare state that will only hasten our moral decline, but to strengthen the American family and return to the Judeo-Christian values that created our prosperity to begin with. Abstinence, “till death do we part” marriage, then children born into a nurturing family—this was the path to American greatness. Illegitimacy, no-fault divorce and broken families is the path of our destruction.” -Frank Pastore

Comment:

Who are the “we” whose “social problems” these are? Surely they are not Mr. Pastore’s problems!

Who is in a “moral decline”? Surely not Mr. Pastore!

And who are the “we” to whose “destruction” there is a path consisting of “[i]llegitimacy, no-fault divorce and broken families”?

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

“Same-sex marriage is a giant leap in the wrong direction. We must turn around while our course is still reversible.” -Frank Pastore

Comment:

Since Mr. Pastore is not involved in same-sex marriage, how does he propose to turn around? He doesn’t think he’s going in the wrong direction.

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

Judgment:

This kind of ownership of other people’s problems, and the despair it creates, is one of the dangers of WEedy thinking. (”What’s wrong with weeds?“)

WEediness Quotient: [FAQ]

5/1 = 5

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

WEeding Winner 33

[< | top | contents | next>>]
[ A ]

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

Reasons for Winning:

“For years, I’ve been beating the seemingly dead horse that the reason we deposed Saddam was to eliminate a national security threat not to establish Iraqi democracy . . . .

Today, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Doug Feith — a guy who was there — makes exactly this case.” -Andy McCarthy

Comment:

If Mr. Feith “was there,” and Mr. McCarthy wasn’t, how is it that Mr. McCarthy thinks he (McCarthy) “deposed Saddam”? Soldiers did. McCarthy didn’t.

[Post More Comments] [ A ]

Judgment:

Using WEEds to take credit for what others have done . . . . (”What’s wrong with weeds?“)

WEediness Quotient: [FAQ]

1/0 = ? [A tie for the highest WEediness Quotient record!]

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

WEeding Winner 34

[< | top | contents | next>>]
[ A | B ]

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

Reasons for Winning:

“We, in the form of the DEA, have been sending specialists out to Afghanistan since the 1980s to persuade them, by carrot or stick, to stop growing opium poppies.” -Lisa Schiffren

Comment:

This sentence is utterly baffling. “We, in the form of the DEA . . . .” What?! We can take form as different things? We are mighty morphin’ power . . . Americans?

The DEA isn’t even elected by “us”!

[Post More Comments] [ A | B ]

“There is nothing complicated about why our many attempts have failed, or, at best, only temporarily displaced poppy growth.” -Lisa Schiffren

Comment:

Do tell us why your attempts have failed. While you’re at it, tell me why my attempts have failed. Then you can tell me why “our” attempts have failed.

Don’t you love it when people tell you you’ve been failing at something you’ve never even tried?

[Post More Comments] [ A | B ]

Judgment:

Did you feel the despair rising in you, as you were WEedily informed of your DEA doppelganger’s failures? (”What’s wrong with weeds?“)

WEediness Quotient: [FAQ]

2/0 = ? [A tie for the highest WEediness Quotient record! (Though, because it has more WEedy sentences that the other two pieces which achieved a WEediness Quotient of ?, it will be awarded first place!)]

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

WEeding Winner 35

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

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

Reasons for Winning:

“In thrashing President Bush over Iraq since before we invaded, the mainstream media and the Democratic Party have succeeded in convincing much of the public that the war is a failure and that we must withdraw immediately.” -David Limbaugh

Comment:

Mr. Limbaugh invaded Iraq, evidently, and is afraid other Americans, who also invaded Iraq (evidently) are going to pull him out.

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

“These mixed poll results show at the very least that a significant number of Americans are open-minded and receptive to the notion that our national interest demands we remain there until we establish substantial order and that Iraqi security forces be able to maintain that order upon our withdrawal.” -David Limbaugh

Comment:

It’s nice to hear that Mr. Limbaugh likes it so much in Iraq, and wants to stay. His goal of “establish[ing] substantial order” is most noble.

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

“The problem for Obama and Democrats on Iraq is that their worldview doesn’t permit them to view Iraq favorably, facts be damned, because they don’t believe in the mission, and they don’t understand we are truly fighting our enemy in Iraq.” -David Limbaugh

Comment:

Actually, “truly” “we” are not “fighting our enemy in Iraq.” Soldiers are. We aren’t.

“[F]acts be damned,” eh?

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

“Iraq — as al-Qaida makes clear every day — is the primary battleground in the war on terror, and we are defeating al-Qaida there as we speak.” -David Limbaugh

Comment:

You are, Mr. Limbaugh? Well, it was nice of you to file this report from the front lines!

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

“This unspeakably arrogant position is embarrassingly wrongheaded, and McCain must continue to articulate that our effort in Iraq is central to our successful prosecution of the war.” -David Limbaugh

Comment:

I was under the impression that military and government types, not pundits, prosecuted wars. But evidently I was wrong . . . .

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

Judgment:

Mr. Limbaugh decries his political opponents’ inability to see the situation clearly, and yet his vision is full of WEEds. (”What’s wrong with weeds?“)

WEediness Quotient: [FAQ]

5/2 = 2.5

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

Call for Nominations

Thanks!

Jump Back:
| Winner 29 [ A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I ] (by Spencer) | Winner 30 [ A ] (by Alter) |
| Winner 31 [ A | B | C | D | F | G ] (by Hanson) | Winner 32 [ A | B | C ] (by Pastore) |
| Winner 33 [ A ] (by McCarthy) | Winner 34 [ A | B ] (by Schiffren) |
| Winner 35 [ A | B | C | D | E ] (by Limbaugh) |

Volume 5

micahtillman — Sun, 25 May 2008 12:00:43 +0000

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

[< | 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

[< | top | contents | next>>]

WEeding Winner 22

[< | 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

[< | top | contents | next>>]

WEeding Winner 23

[< | 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

[< | top | contents | next>>]

WEeding Winner 24

[< | 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

[< | top | contents | next>>]

WEeding Winner 25

[< | 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

[< | top | contents | next>>]

WEeding Winner 26

[< | 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!]

[< | top | contents | next>>]

WEeding Winner 27

[< | 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

[< | top | contents | next>>]

WEeding Winner 28 (Honorary)

[< | 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 impossible.

“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?” -Ron Rosenbaum

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.

“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?” -Ron Rosenbaum

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.

“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’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 20^th century is to its eternal credit, just as the “Southern strategy” was much to its discredit in the second half of the century.” -Ron Rosenbaum

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?

“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.” -Ron Rosenbaum

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.

“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.”" -Ron Rosenbaum

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.

“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.

“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).” -Ron Rosenbaum

Comment:

Sound familiar?

“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).

“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

[< | top | contents | next>>]

Call for Nominations

Thanks!

Volume 4

micahtillman — Sun, 18 May 2008 12:00:48 +0000

WEeding Awards, vol.4

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.]

Contents

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

[< | top | contents | next>>]

“Enabling Hezbollah,” by Ralph Peters, New York Post

Reasons for Winning:

“When will we face reality? Hezbollah can’t be appeased.” -Ralph Peters

“But we - Israel, the United States, Europe - lack the will.” -Ralph Peters

“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

“Exactly how many al Qaeda members have we converted to secular humanism?” -Ralph Peters

“Entranced by the military vogue of the season, we don’t even get our terminology right.” -Ralph Peters

“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

“We lack the strength of will to do this right.” -Ralph Peters

“We rely on that fatal narcotic, diplomacy, as Lebanon shatters and our enemies pick up the pieces.” -Ralph Peters

“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!]

[< | top | contents | next>>]

WEeding Winner16

[< | top | contents | next>>]

“Aid at the Point of a Gun,” by Robert Kaplan, New York Times

Reasons for Winning:

“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

“We could do a lot of good merely by holding out the possibility of an invasion.” -Robert Kaplan

“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

“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

“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

[< | top | contents | next>>]

WEeding Winner 17

[< | top | contents | next>>]

“Should Burma Be Saved from Itself?,” by George Packer, New Yorker

Reasons for Winning:

“[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

“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

[< | top | contents | next>>]

WEeding Winner 18

[< | top | contents | next>>]

“The Race Perplex,” by Howard Fineman, Newsweek

Reasons for Winning:

“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

“Well, that argument did not end. [Obama] and we were naive to think it would.” -Howard Fineman

“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…

[< | top | contents | next>>]

WEeding Winner 19

[< | top | contents | next>>]

“The Indianapolis Star,” by David Freddoso, NRO’s “The Corner” blog

Reasons for Winning:

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

“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

[< | top | contents | next>>]

WEeding Winner 20

[< | top | contents | next>>]

“An Unnatural Disaster,” by Michael Hirsh, Newsweek

Reasons for Winning:

“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

“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

“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

“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

“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

“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

“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

“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

“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

“Had we handled things right, what is now deemed American “decline” could have played out very differently.” -Michael Hirsh

“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!]

[< | top | contents | next>>]

Call for Nominations

Thanks!

Volume 3

micahtillman — Sun, 11 May 2008 12:00:44 +0000

WEeding Awards, vol. 3

Prologue

This week’s volume of the WEeding Awards shows us that people on both sides of the political aisle can express diametrically opposed views while committing the same mistake.

First, it highlights WEeds by two commentators who are for — and by a Democratic presidential candidate who is against — the Iraq war. (”What’s wrong with weeds?“)

Then it pokes gentle fun at a group of editors for using WEeds to take responsibility for defeating the Nazis and the Soviets, and at a Canadian for speaking in the first-person plural about Americans’ activities.

And finally, it ribs a magazine bureau chief for seeming to think he knows what he doesn’t, and a noted journalist for thinking he doesn’t think what he thinks.

There’s nothing more fun than a new volume of the WEeding Awards, so read away! Start from the beginning, or click on a title below to jump to the text’s award explanation/announcement. Either way, you’re in for a treat!

Contents

8: “The View from the Continent,” by Peter Wehner, Commentary Magazine’s “Contentions” blog

9: “Interview with Senator Barack Obama,” answers by Barack Obama, CNN’s The Situation Room

10: “Rethinking the Iraq Critics,” by Michael Barone, U.S. News and World Report

11: “We’re (Still) No. 1,” by the Editors, Investors Business Daily

12: “Getting Away With Torture,” by Dahlia Lithwick, Newsweek

13: “Should You Pay $6 Per Gallon?,” by Keith Naughton, Newsweek

14: “Genetic Discrimination: Unfair or Natural?,” by Michael Kinsley, Time

WEeding Winner 8

[< | top | contents | next>>]

“The View from the Continent,” by Peter Wehner, Commentary Magazine’s “Contentions” blog

Reasons for Winning:

“[I]t’s also worth putting on the other side of the moral ledger the fact that we liberated more than 50 million people from two of the most odious and repressive regimes in modern history.” -Peter Wehner

“That is especially true now that we have the right strategy in place, that we’re seeing progress on almost every front, and that we have a decent shot at a decent outcome in Iraq. The situation is still hugely challenging and success, if we achieve it, will be long in coming.” -Peter Wehner

Comments:

In A: Mr. Wehner may be speaking in the first-person plural of himself insofar as he was a member of the Bush administration. However, the post does not attempt to clarify whether Mr. Wehner means the rest of the “we” to include only the Bush administration, or the American citizenry as a whole.

I would argue that — given this ambiguity and the cultural context in which Mr. Wehner is writing — the “we” in “we liberated 50 million people” is meant to include all Americans, and is therefore a WEed. (”What’s wrong with weeds?“)

Most Americans have liberated no one. If liberation has occurred in Afghanistan and Iraq, it was the soldiers on the ground who brought it.

Since most of us Americans are not soldiers, the article’s use of the first-person plural to honor us for something we did not do is a WEed.

In B: Both the first and last instances of “we” are WEeds. Neither you, nor I, nor Mr. Wehner have a “strategy in place” with regard to Iraq. We are living our lives here (going to work, hanging out with friends, reading blogs), not living, working, or fighting in Iraq.

And the “success” of which the article speaks, if it is achieved, will not have been achieved by you, me, or Mr. Wehner. It will have been achieved by the people living, working, or fighting in Iraq.

Therefore, describing such an achievement as something “we” might produce is WEedy.

WEediness Quotient: [FAQ]

3/4 = 0.75

[< | top | contents | next>>]

WEeding Winner 9

[< | top | contents | next>>]

“Interview with Senator Barack Obama,” answers by Barack Obama, CNN’s The Situation Room

Reasons for Winning:

“If I had my way, we would not have gone into Iraq in the first place.” -Barack Obama

“And I think the American people are smart enough to understand that a phased withdrawal, where we’re as careful getting out as we were careless getting in, that puts pressure on the Iraqis to stand up and take seriously their obligations to arrive at a political accommodation at the same time as we are doubling down on diplomacy in the surrounding region, . . . then we are also investing in humanitarian aid for the people who have been displaced in Iraq, that that’s not surrendering.” -Barack Obama

“That’s a sensible policy that will allow us then to deal with our biggest strategic problem, which is al Qaeda in Afghanistan and the border regions of Pakistan reconstituting themselves. And that’s something that we have been distracted from and something that I intend to focus on when I’m president of the United States.” -Barack Obama

“I think the way we have run this war in Iraq has lessened our ability to move our allies. It has led us to ignore the critical needs for us to focus on a sound energy policy in this country. It has left us unable to lead on critical global issues like global warming. And it has led us to neglect what ultimately is the most important thing to keeping America safe, and that is having an economy that is the envy of the world and that gives us the resources and the power to project ourselves around the world.” -Barack Obama

Comments:

With regard to A: The “go[ing] into Iraq” of which Obama speaks was done by troops. Obama is not in the armed forces. He may have visited Iraq after the initial invasion; but he no doubt did so on purpose. Surely he wouldn’t have gone against his own wishes by going into Iraq.

In short, Obama is speaking in the first person about things he himself has not done. Thus the “we” in A is a WEed. (”What’s wrong with weeds?“)

With regard to B: “[T]he American people” are not in Iraq. They did not “[get] in” “carelessly,” nor will they be “getting out” “careful[ly].” Some people who are American are in Iraq, but not the American people.

More importantly, Barack Obama himself did not get carelessly into Iraq. He was against the invasion. And yet Obama speaks in the first person of both invading and leaving Iraq. This is a WEed.

With regard to C: If Obama is so concerned about the situation in Afghanistan/Pakistan, can we really take him seriously when he speaks in the first person of “be[ing] distracted from” that situation?

With regard to D: Even though he has not been “run[ning] this war,” Obama speaks in the first person of doing so. No American but Bush and his generals can claim to have been running the war.

Then, after taking credit for running the war poorly, he claims to have “ignore[d]” and “neglect[ed]” other things which he claims to think are very important. Can we actually believe he has been ignoring and neglecting these things?

Once again, he speaks in the first person of things he has not done. These are WEeds.

WEediness Quotient: [FAQ]

6/38 = 0.15789

[< | top | contents | next>>]

WEeding Winner 10

[< | top | contents | next>>]

“Rethinking the Iraq Critics,” by Michael Barone, U.S. News and World Report

Reasons for Winning:

“Feith identifies as our central mistake the decision not to create an Iraqi Interim Authority to take over some sovereign functions soon after the overthrow of Saddam.” -Michael Barone

“There’s still much to be learned about our decisions, good and bad, in Iraq.” -Michael Barone

Comments:

Barone writes of “our central mistake” and “our decisions, good and bad, in Iraq.” And yet I can find no evidence that he has made any mistakes or decisions in Iraq. As best I can tell, he is simply a journalist and commentator.

One thing that is particularly ironic about the WEedy sentences above, is that the article includes other sentences like,

“As head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, Paul Bremer took the State-CIA view and, without much supervision from Washington, decided that the U.S. occupation would continue for as long as two years” (regarding “our central mistake”), and

“Feith admits he made mistakes and misjudgments,”

in which it is clear whose decisions were good and whose mistaken.

And yet Barone — writing in the first person, elsewhere in the same article — speaks as if the very decisions he has attributed to Bremer, Bush, Feith, et al., are his own. Thus the instances of the first-person plural in A and B are WEeds. (”What’s wrong with weeds?“)

WEediness Quotient: [FAQ]

2/6 = 0.333…

[< | top | contents | next>>]

WEeding Winner 11

[< | top | contents | next>>]

“We’re (Still) No. 1,” by the Editors, Investors Business Daily

Reasons for Winning:

“We defeated Nazism, fascism and communism.” -IBD Editors

“If an Indian billionaire is now richer than Donald Trump, so what? We made it possible.” -IBD Editors

“This is not to say America doesn’t have its problems. We were once limited by only our dreams. Now we are limited by politicians who can’t see beyond the next election.” -IBD Editors

“We import oil from terrorist supporters while leaving ours in the ground. China is building nuclear and coal plants. Why aren’t we?” -IBD Editors

“The Soviets were going to bury us, remember? We buried them.” -IBD Editors

Comments:

With regard to A: One wants to ask the IBD editors how they had time to do all of this while getting their degrees, making a name for themselves in the business world, working for IBD, etc. Evidently they have WWII veterans among them. An impressive team!

With regard to B: I assume the Indian billionaire in question has written to thank the IBD editors personally.

With regard to C: Evidently a lot has changed in American governance over the lifetimes of the current IBD editors. A shift from total freedom to complete tyranny?

With regard to D: Sounds like the IBD editors need to be making better life choices. Maybe they would have time to build more nuclear and coal plants if they weren’t spending so much time editing IBD.

With regard to E: And here I thought it was the Beatles, or Pope John Paul II, or Dallas, or Reagan, who had “buried” the Soviets. Evidently it was the IBD editors.

In short, it is clear that each of the above uses of the first-person plural by the IBD editors is a WEed. (”What’s wrong with weeds?“)

WEediness Quotient: [FAQ]

7/12 = 0.58333…

[< | top | contents | next>>]

WEeding Winner 12

[< | top | contents | next>>]

“Getting Away With Torture,” by Dahlia Lithwick, Newsweek

Reasons for Winning:

“Our ‘terror trials’ aren’t working.” -Dahlia Lithwick

“And even if we do convict this handful of terrorists at Guantánamo, there still remain almost 300 detainees at the base, held there for years without charges.” -Dahlia Lithwick

Comments:

First, Ms. Lithwick is a Canadian.

Second, Ms. Lithwick is not involved in the prosecution of anyone in Guantánamo.

And yet Ms. Lithwick writes in the first person about actions which are being engaged in by American prosecutors.

The “our” and the “we” above are WEeds. (”What’s wrong with weeds?“)

WEediness Quotient: [FAQ]

2/1 = 2

[< | top | contents | next>>]

WEeding Winner 13

[< | top | contents | next>>]

“Should You Pay $6 Per Gallon?,” by Keith Naughton, Newsweek

Reasons for Winning:

“The fact is, as much as we gripe about gas prices, we’re pumping just as much of the precious liquid into our tanks as ever.” -Keith Naughton

“What’s driving this demand? Our lust for large cars and long trips.” -Keith Naughton

“And as we have migrated ever deeper into the exurbs, the average miles driven per household has jumped 42 percent, from 19,000 miles in 1980 to 27,000 miles last year, according to federal statistics.” -Keith Naughton

“But we’re not dramatically downsizing our rides the way our parents did after the oil embargos of the 1970s.” -Keith Naughton

“But we’re not making that kind of transportation sacrifice today, even though we’ve blown past the inflation-adjusted record gas price of $3.40 a gallon set back in 1981.” -Keith Naughton

“Back in 1980 gas and oil expenditures accounted for 5 percent of our personal income.” -Keith Naughton

“Now, though, we’re used to riding high in a comfortable, commodious cabin and don’t want to turn back.” -Keith Naughton

“But it might not take pricey technologies or outlandish gas prices to change our guzzling ways.” -Keith Naughton

Comments:

With regard to A: One wants to ask Mr. Naughton, “You do? You ‘gripe about gas prices’? You’re ‘pumping just as much of the precious liquid into [y]our tanks as ever’?” Because if not, he should not speak in the first person about doing so.

One also wants to ask Mr. Naughton, “And I’m doing the same?” Because if not, he cannot speak for me through pluralizing his first-person speech.

With regard to B: I know plenty of people who have no “lust for large cars and long trips.” In fact, given the critical tone of the article, I doubt that Mr. Naughton lusts for either. And yet Mr. Naughton writes as if he speaks for himself, and all the rest of us.

With regard to C: One wants to ask Mr. Naughton, “You have? You’ve ‘imigrated ever deeper into the exurbs’? Why are you doing this?” One also wants to ask Mr. Naughton, “And I have as well? How do you know?” Once again, Mr. Naughton’s article misuses the first-person plural.

With regard to D: One wants to ask Mr. Naughton, “You aren’t? Why aren’t you following your parents’ example?”

One also wants to ask Mr. Naughton, “I’m not? How do you know the relative size of the cars I’ve driven? And you know this for every other American too? There isn’t a single American out there who has followed their parents’ example?”

Yet another WEed. (”What’s wrong with weeds?“)

With regard to E: One wants to ask Mr. Naughton, “Why aren’t you ‘making that kind of transportation sacrifice’, and how do you know I’m not?” WEeds, WEeds, WEeds.

With regard to F: I had no income back in 1980. (I wasn’t even born for most of it.) Neither did 99% of my students (who weren’t born until well into the ’80’s). And yet you speak for us as if we had incomes and spent a percentage of them on gas and oil.

Furthermore, it’s difficult to believe that Mr. Naughton himself spent exactly “5 percent of [his] personal income” as a sophmore/junior at Central Michigan U. And yet he writes in the first person of doing so.

With regard to G: One wants to ask Mr. Naughton, “Why are you still writing as if you speak for everyone? Some of us have never had enough money to get ‘used to riding high in a comfortable, commodious cabin’. Many of us don’t even own cars at all.”

And with regard to H: Is it really believable that Mr. Naughton believes his “ways” to be “guzzling”? If he does, why hasn’t he changed them? And if he has, why isn’t he brave enough to say “your” rather than “our”?

From all of this, it is evident that the article is filled with WEeds, and thus deserves a WEedy.

WEediness Quotient: [FAQ]

8/16 = 0.5

[< | top | contents | next>>]

WEeding Winner 14

[< | top | contents | next>>]

“Genetic Discrimination: Unfair or Natural?,” by Michael Kinsley, Time

Reasons for Winning:

“Of course, we outlaw a lot of behavior that would be rational if it weren’t against the law.” -Michael Kinsley

“Nevertheless, the near total and uncontroversial agreement among Americans that genetic discrimination is wrong says something important about us: we may be a bit confused about all this, but we are a lot more radical about equality than we think.” -Michael Kinsley

Comments:

Regarding A: As far as I can tell, Mr. Kinsley has never served in a legislature. And yet he writes in the first person of “outlaw[ing] a lot of behavior . . . .”

Regarding B: Evidently Mr. Kinsley doesn’t trust himself very much. He thinks he’s more radical than he thinks. Which means he thinks he’s wrong about himself.

Which means he doesn’t think what he thinks.

What?

WEeds, that’s what. (”What’s wrong with weeds?“)

WEediness Quotient: [FAQ]

2/7 = 0.285714

[< | top | contents | next>>]

Call for Nominations

Thanks!

What’s Wrong with WEeds?

micahtillman — Tue, 06 May 2008 20:33:11 +0000

. . . at least four things now.

And I’m always on the lookout for more. So let me know if you find one!

Volume 2

micahtillman — Sun, 04 May 2008 14:00:46 +0000

WEeding Awards, vol. 2

Last week there was only one winning text. This week, I will be awarding WEedies to six texts (click on the text’s title to jump to its WEeding Award announcement):

2: “The Real Cost of Tackling Climate Change,” by Steven Hayward, Wall Street Journal

3: Speech to the NAACP, by Jeremiah Wright

4: Q&A After Speech to the National Press Club, by Jeremiah Wright

5: “Inspiration Versus Degradation,” by Erica Jong, Huffington Post

6: “Climate apocalypse: Shock new development!,” by Mark Steyn, NRO’s “The Corner” blog

7: “‘Willful Blindness’ to the Jihad,” David Limbaugh, Town Hall

Three from progressives. Three from conservatives. WEeding is turning into a growth industry.

And (spoiler alert!) four of the following texts beat the previous record for highest WEediness Quotient, held by “How the South Won (This) Civil War,” by Michael Hirsh.

WEeding Winner 2

[< | top | next>>]

“The Real Cost of Tackling Climate Change,” by Steven Hayward, Wall Street Journal

Reason for Winning:

“It is likely that U.S. per capita emissions were never that low – even back in colonial days when the only fuel we burned was wood.” -Steven Hayward

Comments:

Sentence A contains one WEed. It begins with an identification of the “U.S.” as a stable entity, which is debatable. But that isn’t the WEed. The WEed occurs when Hayward speaks in the first person about what he (and you and I) did “in colonial days.”

No one is that old.

WEediness Quotient: [FAQ]

1/13 = 0.0769231

[< | top | next>>]

WEeding Winner 3

[< | top | next>>]

Speech to the NAACP, by Jeremiah Wright

Reasons for Winning:

“In the past, we were taught to see others who are different as somehow being deficient.” -Jeremiah Wright

“In the past, we were taught to see others who are different as being deficient. We established arbitrary norms and then determined that anybody not like us was abnormal. But a change is coming because we no longer see others who are different as being deficient. We just see them as different. Over the past 50 years, thanks to the scholarship of dozens of expert in many different disciplines, we have come to see just how skewed, prejudiced and dangerous our miseducation has been.” -Jeremiah Wright

“And we were coming up with more meaningless solutions like reading, writing and Ritalin.

“Dr. Hale showed us that in comparing African-American children and European-American children in the field of education, we were comparing apples and rocks.

“And in so doing, we kept coming up with meaningless labels like EMH, educable mentally handicapped, TMH, trainable mentally handicapped, ADD, attention deficit disorder.” -Jeremiah Wright

“Some of you all came on a decks of ship and some of us came on the bows and hauls of the ship, but we all are immigrants.” -Jeremiah Wright

Comments:

A is the same as B’s first sentence (”B.1″), so I’ll begin with B. The obvious questions to ask in response to B.1 is, “You were? I was? We were?” How did we ever break free of such thinking, if this is what we were all taught? And does Wright really mean that both those who were discriminated against and those who were doing the discriminating looked down on each other? If so, wouldn’t the entire victim-victimizer structure break down?

As for B’s second sentence (”B.2″), the obvious question to ask is, “If you were going around ‘establish[ing] arbitrary norms and then determin[ing] that anybody not like [you] was abnormal’, what made you change your mind?”

B.3-4 provide us hope, because “we,” evidently, have changed our minds. Thank goodness. But given the way Wright has talked about racism in other contexts, it’s difficult to believe that the “we” who “no longer see others who are different as being deficient” is the same “we” referred to in B.2.

And as for B.5, I have to be grateful that my education wasn’t as bad as Wright is claiming his was.

In C, Wright makes some startling admissions regarding the “meaningless solutions” and “labels” which he used to employ. Thank goodness Dr. Hale, who set Wright straight.

Finally, it is difficult to believe that Wright actually thinks each member of his audience was born in another country and then immigrated as part of the slave trade. In fact, Wright is a native American, born in Philadelphia.

In each of these cases it is clear that Wright speaks in the first person about things which he does not believe about himself or his audience. If he did, he would have been accusing himself and the NAACP of being one of the most biased organizations of which I have ever heard. And I don’t think he thought he was doing that.

Therefore, the occurrences of the first-person plural above are WEeds.

WEediness Quotient: [FAQ]

10/70 = 0.142857 [A new record for number of WEedy sentences!]

[< | top | next>>]

WEeding Winner 4

[< | top | next>>]

Q&A After Speech to the National Press Club, by Jeremiah Wright

Reasons for Winning:

“[H]ave we asked the Japanese to forgive us? We have never as a country, the policymakers — in fact, Clinton almost got in trouble because he almost apologized at Gorialan (ph). We have never apologized as a country.” -Jeremiah Wright

“We sold him those biological weapons that he was using against his own people. So any time a government can put together biological warfare to kill people, and then get angry when those people use what we sold them, yes, I believe we are capable.” -Jeremiah Wright

“We have troops stationed all over the world, just like Rome had troops stationed all over the world, because we run the world.” -Jeremiah Wright

“[W]hite Christians have been trying for a long time to reconcile, that for other white Christians to understand that we must be reconciled is to understand the injustice that was done to a people, as we raped the continent, brought those people here, built our country, and then defined them as less than human.” -Jeremiah Wright

Comments:

I’ve already written about A. Wright himself neither killed any Japanese people, nor held them in concentration camps. And yet he speaks in the first person of doing so (and of not apologizing to them for doing so).

In B, Wright speaks in the first person of selling weapons to Saddam, and being capable of unethical “scientific” experimentation on humans. He never did the former, and I doubt he actually believes himself capable of the latter.

In C, Wright speaks in the first person of “run[ning] the world.” Neither he nor you nor I run the world.

In D, Wright speaks in the first person of “rap[ing] the continent,” importing slaves, and “defin[ing]” people of African descent “as less than human.” He has clearly never done either the first or the second, and I doubt very much that he has done the third.

Therefore, the instances of the first-person plural in the above quotations (except the first “we” in C, perhaps) are WEeds.

WEediness Quotient: [FAQ]

7/20 = 0.35

[< | top | next>>]

WEeding Winner 5

[< | top | next>>]

“Inspiration Versus Degradation,” by Erica Jong, Huffington Post

Reasons for Winning:

“Haven’t we been squandering hard earned taxpayer money on overseas adventures while we starve poor children? Haven’t we been supporting dictators while prating of democracy? Haven’t we been enriching profiteers at the expense of health care and education? You betcha.” -Erica Jong

“Italians love American and feel pain when we slide away from the great ideals our Constitution and Bill of Rights have given the world.” -Erica Jong

Comments:

In A, Jong speaks in the first person about some truly terrible things. Why she thinks I should listen her, when she commits such atrocities, is beyond me.

In B, Jong speaks in the first person about “slid[ing] away from the great ideals our Constitution and Bill of Rights have given the world.” Again, why I should listen to her, when she does such things is beyond me.

Clearly, Jong does not believe herself to be guilty of the things of which she claims to be guilty. Therefore, the uses of the first-person plural above are WEeds.

WEediness Quotient: [FAQ]

4/3 = 1.333…

[< | top | next>>]

WEeding Winner 6

[< | top | next>>]

“Climate apocalypse: Shock new development!,” by Mark Steyn, NRO’s The Corner

Reason for Winning:

“[. . .] but hopefully not before we’ve wrecked the global economy to ‘address’ the ‘problem’.” -Mark Steyn

Comments:

Clearly Steyn does not believe himself to be “wreck[ing] the global economy.” And yet he speaks in the first person about doing so.

WEediness Quotient: [FAQ]

1/0 = ? [A new record for highest WEediness Quotient!]

[< | top | next>>]

WEeding Winner 7

[< | top | next>>]

“‘Willful Blindness’ to the Jihad,” David Limbaugh, Town Hall

Reasons for Winning:

“If we continue to treat them as criminal suspects rather than enemy combatants, they’ll always be many steps ahead of us in a war that only they are fighting.” -David Limbaugh

“[W]e must take that into account in formulating our security doctrine, such as punishing states . . . .” -David Limbaugh

“Instead of approaching the war tentatively, we must be aggressive, offensive and pre-emptive.” -David Limbaugh

Comments:

In A, Limbaugh speaks in the first person about prosecuting “enemy combatants,” even though he is not involved in any such prosecution.

In B, Limbaugh speaks in the first person about “formulating our security doctrine,” and gives examples “such as punishing states.” And yet he is not involved in the former and cannot do the latter.

And in C, Limbaugh speaks in the first person of doing things only soldiers can do, even though he is not himself a soldier.

Therefore, the instances of the first-person plural above are WEeds.

WEediness Quotient: [FAQ]

3/13 = 0.230769

[< | top | next>>]

Call for Nominations

Thanks!

Volume 1

micahtillman — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 13:00:13 +0000

WEeding Awards, vol. 1

[<About | Winners | Records | FAQ | Volume 2>>]

Announcement

I am instituting the WEeding Awards to highlight those texts which continue the unfortunate trend of misusing the first-person plural. It is my hope that these awards will inspire people to weed out such mistakes in their own thinking. (And I hope that handing out WEedings will keep me on my toes, lest I have to “honor” one of my own pieces in the process!)

Winner 1

[<next>>]

The first winner is a text by Michael Hirsh in Newsweek, entitled “How the South Won (This) Civil War.”

Reasons for Winning:

This article was nominated for a WEedy because of the following lines:

“We must endure ‘lapel-pin politics’ that elevates the shallowest sort of faux jingoism over who’s got a better plan for Iraq and Afghanistan. We have re-imported creationism into our political dialogue (in the form of ‘intelligent design’).” -Michael Hirsh

“We routinely demonize organizations like the United Nations that we desperately need and which are critical to missions like nation-building in Afghanistan.” -Michael Hirsh

Comments:

This text was awarded a WEedy because of the blatant shift from a possibly-legitimate use of “we” in A’s first sentence (i.e., it could be that “we” all are “enduring” the “politics” described) to the obvious misuse of “we” in A’s second sentence.

In loathing the “re-impor[ation of] creationism into our political dialogue,” Mr. Hirsh shows himself to not be party to said re-importation. But since Mr. Hirsh is not one of the re-importers, he cannot legitimately speak of them in the first person.

The same reasoning applies to B’s use of “we.” Through this line, Mr. Hirsh makes it evident that he deeply appreciates “organizations like the United Nations.” Therefore, Mr. Hirsh would not “demonize” any such organization, and cannot use the first person of those who do.

WEediness Quotient:

I count 2 sentences that contain WEeds (i.e., misuses of the first-person plural). I count 9 other sentences in which the first-person plural is used legitimately. Thus, the WEediness Quotient of “How the South Won (This) Civil War” is 2/9, or 0.222… .

Since this article is the first winner of a WEeding Award, it sets the record for number of WEedy sentences, and overall WEediness Quotient. Congratulations to “How the South Won (This) Civil War“!

[<next>>]

Call for Nominations

Thanks!

[<About | Winners | Records | FAQ | Volume 2>>]