January 13, 2011

Who? Whom?

On the VDARE blog, I helpfully fill in some of this morning's New York Times editorial:

Translating NYT Editorialese into English

The crafting of a New York Times editorial is an august undertaking requiring the judicious involvement of a distinguished body of thinkers selected for their wisdom and forbearance. So I feel privileged to be able to present excerpts from the NYT’s January 13, 2011 editorial, along with notes explaining more fully the thought processes behind this morning’s profound missive to an eagerly awaiting nation:

First, here are excerpts from today's New York Times:
Editorial: As We Mourn
We should take the president’s message to heart and rise above partisanship.

... Mr. Obama called on ideological campaigners to stop vilifying their opponents. The only way to move forward after such a tragedy, he said, is to cast aside “point-scoring and pettiness.” … It was important that Mr. Obama transcend the debate about whose partisanship has been excessive and whose words have sown the most division and dread. This page and many others have identified those voices and called on them to stop demonizing their political opponents. ...

The president’s words were an important contrast to the ugliness that continues to swirl in some parts of the country. The accusation by Sarah Palin that “journalists and pundits” had committed a “blood libel” when they raised questions about overheated rhetoric was especially disturbing, given the grave meaning of that phrase in the history of the Jewish people. ...

Earlier in the day, the speaker of the House, John Boehner, and the minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, issued their own, very welcome, calls to rise above partisanship.

And now some annotations:
Editorial: As We Mourn
We should take the president’s message to heart and rise above partisanship.
Please note that we of the New York Times Editorial Board aren’t using the famous Editorial We here. By “we,” we don’t actually mean “us,” we mean "you." You should rise above partisanship, you hate-filled, nauseating, vomitous, anti-illegal immigration Republicans. Don’t you realize how vile you are? Didn’t you see Machete?
As for our side, we’re always above partisanship. For example, when our Frank Rich, in his May 1, 2010 NYT column discussing SB1070, “If Only Arizona Were the Real Problem,” used the following terms in relation to you conservatives: “angry,” “virus,” “hysteria,” “vicious,” “bigoted,” “apoplexy,” “slimed,” “snarling,” “notorious,” “incendiary,” and “rage,” he was speaking out against divisiveness and vitriol. Your divisiveness and vitriol. Why can't you grasp simple concepts like that, you low IQ white trash?

Read the whole thing here

17 comments:

Baloo said...

Steve, this one made you mad. I like your usual dispassionate, amused take on things, but it's refreshing to see you get mad now and then.

Anonymous said...

This is remarkably petty of you, there wasn't anything hypocritical about that NYT editorial.

Also, one of your blindspots is Sarah-Palin, your continued defense of her is baffling.

Yes, I like fecundity every bit as much as the next person but she's nothing but a self-promoter.

Kylie said...

"Steve, this one made you mad. I like your usual dispassionate, amused take on things, but it's refreshing to see you get mad now and then."

My thoughts exactly.

And he's just as funny when he's bitingly incisive as he is when he's his usual low-key, laid-back, SoCal self.

I don't know which I find more incredible, that the NYT had the gall to publish that editorial or that Obama had the gall to turn a memorial service into a political rally.

Simon in London said...

The NYT has certainly been particularly ugly and hate-filled recently. Personally I quiet those angry voices of intolerance by avoiding reading it whenever possible.

JackC said...

"Steve, this one made you mad. I like your usual dispassionate, amused take on things, but it's refreshing to see you get mad now and then."

Agreed. I've taken a low-key, Mencken attitude towards what's been happening lately, but it's about time someone really put these bullies in their place. They have as little shame as they have self-awareness.

Anonymous said...

"This is remarkably petty of you, there wasn't anything hypocritical about that NYT editorial."

Haha. Very subtle satire there, Mr. Anonymous.

Fred said...

This isn't classic Steve. We can get "angry" with the rest of the paleo blogosphere. Classic Steve is aloof coolness and wit.

Anonymous said...

Exactly right Steve.

What I really cannot stand is this horrible, mawkish hypocrisy being voiced by certain politicians on the left by screaming loudly that they 'want to see an end to all the nasty-name calling and vitriol of American politics'.
Firstly I'm no big fan of Sarah Palin, but has there ever been any other recent US politician apart from Reagan who has been the target of such unremitting hatred, abuse and venom, all of it, mind you, spat out by the political left who are now crying to moomy about all this 'nasty abuse'.
Secondly the whole business of poltics as it practised in the USA is abuse and personal attacks on polticians by other politicians - in the lowest, foulest way possible.Perhaps it shouldn't be like that that, but it's always been like that, as long as I can remember and probably a damn sight longer.Just look at ANY electoral broadcst for example.Polticians have made careers out of this childish 'yah-boo' namecalling, it's waht they do and do best, it's their lifeblood, their bread and butter, generally they don't behave like courteous, mature, well brought up well mannered adults, uncharitably I might remark it's all they can do, as a breed they don't seem to have got beyond the 7 year old stage.If you ever watch televized congress proceedings you'll never see a politician more enraputed in paroxyitic excstasy than when he is standing on the floor of the house mouthing-off in full throat calling his adversary all sorts of nasty names whilst chortling to himself.
And yet... and yet... we get eactly the self-same people having the gall to lecture the public about 'abusing' politicians in the print media.
I despair.

Robert said...

Come on! This is one of Steve Sailer's wittiest pieces.

elvisd said...

Since you brought up Danny Trejo again ("Machete"), thought I'd pass on a documentary that he narrates. I recommend that every teenage Southern boy watch it before they think about getting in trouble.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4_uvvcaDqw

Laban said...

There was a great piece on the Obama speech by Jonathan Freedland..

He started saying what a fantastic speech it was, how it rose above partisanship etc - before revealing that when Obama said 'what we can’t do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another', that obviously didn't apply to him.

This was meant to be the Republicans' week, as they took control of the House of Representatives and its legislative agenda. Instead they look small – as well as defensive, fending off accusations that it was the violent rhetoric of the right that fuelled the current toxic political environment. None smaller than the de facto leader of today's Republican party, Sarah Palin, who preceded the Tucson address with an aggressive, self-regarding and petty-minded videotaped message that claimed she had been the victim of a "blood-libel"."

Chicago said...

In keeping with the current circus environment Obama, as president, cut to the head of the line in order to score points in this contest to see who can be the most eloquent and high minded sounding thespian. Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address himself, one of the great speeches; these modern day politicians utilize speechwriters. We should give credit to the actual writers by reporting "Obama today read this speech written by so-and-so off the teleprompter". Since none of these folks were actually acquainted with the deceased these shows of public anguish are just contrived games of one-upsmanship. Cry me a river of crocodile tears.

Anonymous said...

Well I thought it was funny. I liked the part about brainwaves.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

This is remarkably petty of you, there wasn't anything hypocritical about that NYT editorial.

Also, one of your blindspots is Sarah-Palin, your continued defense of her is baffling.

Yes, I like fecundity every bit as much as the next person but she's nothing but a self-promoter.


There is none so blind as the willfully blind.

none of the above said...

The frustrating thing about Palin is this juxtaposition:

a. As best I can tell, she's massively unqualified for high office, and would be a disastrous president, probably notably worse than W.

b. About 90% of the crap she gets in the MSM is for stupid reasons unrelated to (a). In particular, a huge amount of the objection of the intellectually unimpressive media class to Palin isn't her lack of intelligence or intellectual curiousity (how would they notice such things?), but rather her social class markers. She doesn't look or talk or live like "serious people," she didn't attend an Ivy League school, she appeals to working class whites in flyover country, etc.

Their objections are mostly from tribalism--they don't like seeing someone from a lesser tribe acting like she's as good as they are. And yet, she's really not too impressive a person, and putting her near power is a terrible mistake.

Mr. Anon said...

@none of the above:

That was a good summation of the phenomenon that is Mrs. Palin. Namely, that she has been wronged for the wrong reasons does not make her right. She is the distaff version of G.W.

Anonymous said...

And yet of all the Republican candidates for president, Sarah is the most likely to move the regular military to The Border with Mexico.

An action to be hoped for.

Goatweed