Volume 8
Jun 15th, 2008 by micahtillman
WEeding Awards, vol. 8
[<<Volume 7 | About | Winners | Records | FAQ | Volume 9>>]
Prologue
The comments are now complete. Click on the links below to jump to my discussion of each text:
38: Speech to NFIB Summit, by John McCain
39: (More) Remarks on Retirement Security, by Barack Obama
40: “Drill Here! Drill Now! Pay Less!,” by Rush Limbaugh
41: “Tax Relief for the Middle Class,” by Barack Obama
42: “Hail the Male,” an Interview with Kathleen Parker (conducted by Kathryn Jean Lopez) regarding Save the Males, National Review Online
WEeding Winner 38
[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]
[ A | B | C | D | E | F ]
Speech to NFIB Summit, by John McCain
A:
“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 ]
B:
“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 ]
C:
“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 ]
D:
“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 ]
E:
“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 ]
F:
“We are going to create a new and simpler tax system — and give the American people a choice.” -John McCain
Comment:
Now, however, things a little more fuzzy regarding who “we” is. Between E and F, you see, there’s a sentence which reads: “Another of my disagreements with Senator Obama concerns the estate tax, which he proposes to increase to a top rate of 55 percent.”
It seems, therefore, that ObaMcCain may have had a falling out mid-speech. So there’s no telling who the “we” is who’s “going to create a new and simpler tax system . . . .”
Our only hint as to who the “we” is be found in the following sentence and a fragment: “As president, I will propose an alternative tax system. When this reform is enacted . . . .” Clearly, the “we” must be whomever can work with McCain (after he has proposed the legislation) to “enact” legislation.
I suppose he means Congress.
Okay, that’s reasonable.
And in that context, the instances of the first-person plural from there to the end make sense (since McCain is in Congress currently, and can, within certain bounds, speak in the first-person plural of them).
[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C | D | E | F ]
Judgment:
It needs WEeding. (”What’s wrong with WEeds?“)
[Post More Comments]
[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]
WEeding Winner 39
[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]
(More) Remarks on Retirement Security, by Barack Obama
Reasons for Winning:
A:
[This is essentially version 2.0 of the speech which won WEedy 27.]
Comment:
Why bother?
Judgment:
It’s like déjà vu, except not cool. Oh, and it’s got WEeds. (”What’s wrong with WEeds?“)
[Post More Comments]
[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]
WEeding Winner 40
[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]
[ A | B | C ]
“Drill Here! Drill Now! Pay Less!,” by Rush Limbaugh
Reasons for Winning:
A:
“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 ]
B:
“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 ]
C:
“Why in the name of hell would people vote for people who would tell you, we can’t do that? We can’t drill our way out of this. Yes, the hell we can. It’s that simple. And, yes, the hell we should. It’s that simple. Drill here. Drill now. Pay less. We’re the United States of America. We can do it.” -Rush Limbaugh
Comment:
That first sentence is a great question, like the ones I keep asking over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over . . . .
But as I pointed out above, just because some Americans can drill doesn’t mean America can, or that we can. Let’s hope some Americans do start drilling here soon, though!
[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C ]
Judgment:
Rush — though a favorite of mine (I’ve written about him many times before) — is usually a pretty WEedy talker, and this little piece is no exception. (”What’s wrong with WEeds?“)
[Post More Comments]
[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]
WEeding Winner 41
[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]
[ A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I ]
“Tax Relief for the Middle Class,” by Barack Obama
Reasons for Winning:
A:
“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 ]
B:
“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 ]
C:
“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 ]
D:
“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 ]
E:
“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 ]
F:
“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 ]
G:
“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 ]
H:
“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 ]
I:
“My tax cut is guided by the simple principle that what’s good for Main Street is good for our entire economy. That’s how we’ll get people the relief they need, while getting our economy back on the right track.” -Barack Obama
Comment:
What? GIMOO/GMI?
That’s what I thought.
[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I ]
Judgment:
What “we” need is someone to WEed your speeches, Senator. (”What’s wrong with WEeds?“)
[Post More Comments]
[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]
WEeding Winner 42
[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]
[ A | B | C | D | E | F | G ]
“Hail the Male,” an Interview with Kathleen Parker (conducted by Kathryn Jean Lopez) regarding Save the Males, National Review Online
Reasons for Winning:
A:
“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 ]
B:
“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 ]
C:
“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 ]
D:
“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 ]
E:
“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 ]
F:
“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 ]
G:
“You and I have a mutual friend who talks about “men who love women.” After the portrait you paint of the way women treat men, what man in his right mind would ever want to have anything to do with women?” -Kathryn Jean Lopez
“The kind who knows our mutual friend. It helps that she loves men. As do we, Kathryn.” -Kathleen Parker
Comment:
It would help if you didn’t speak in the first-person when you weren’t talking about yourself . . . . And there’s something disturbingly collectivist about talking about “the way women treat men.”
(And there’s something disturbingly double-speak-ish about talking about “the way women treat men” and then distinguishing yourself, a woman, as someone who doesn’t treat men that way.)
[Post More Comments] [ A | B | C | D | E | F | G ]
Judgment:
It’s a shame that such an important issue would be couched in so many WEeds. (”What’s wrong with WEeds?“)
[Post More Comments]
[<<prev. | top | contents | next>>]
Call for Nominations
Have you encountered any texts online (posts, articles, comments, speeches, websites, etc.) which need WEeding? I welcome nominations for future WEeding Awards, so keep your eye out while you’re surfing! Just use the Contact page, and send me the URL.
Thanks!
[<<Volume 7 | About | Winners | Records | FAQ | Volume 9>>]
[...] finished commenting on John McCain’s speech to the NFIB (over at the WEeding Awards) and while doing so I made an amazing [...]
[...] do my job too, it [...]
[...] Here. [...]
[...] Comments « Volume 8 [...]