Comments Posted By michael reynolds
Displaying 371 To 380 Of 839 Comments
THE OUTING OF PUBLIUS AND THE COMFORT OF ANONYMITY
Okay, I lied. One more:
"Are you queeging me? Well I'm the only one here. Who the f--- do you think you're queeging?"
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 7.06.2009 @ 16:35
One more:
"Don't queeg me, bro!"
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 7.06.2009 @ 16:30
I agree with #13 above: good use of Captain Queeg.
In fact, you could make a verb of it. To Queeg.
"Man, lighten up! You are totally queeging!"
To the wife: "Stop queeging on me, I just smiled at her!"
If I wrote for adults I'd steal it. Unfortunately people under a certain age would just think it was a typo.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 7.06.2009 @ 16:29
Hmmm, this is a tough one.
On the one hand I dislike outing, particularly outing for purposes of revenge. It's rude, it's creepy, it's evidence of immaturity.
On the other hand if we could magically leap from where we are now to a place where all blogging and all commenting was under verified true names we'd instantly see the ambient IQ of the blogosphere jump by 50 points.
It's the half-in, half-out nature of the beast that makes trouble. Some of us real, some of us pseudonymous. It gives the advantage of rudeness to the anonymous. It essentially cedes the gutter to them. The use of real names -- for example Andrew Sullivan or Rick Moran -- I think conveys an honesty and thus authority that remains doubtful when reading pseudonymous bloggers.
In my professional life I square the circle imperfectly by writing kid's books under a pseudonym because I don't want to use my platform as an author to draw unwitting kids to political commentary (and language) they may find inappropriate.
But then I make sure that anyone who really cares can figure out that Michael Grant and Michael Reynolds are the same guy. It's an imperfect solution.
On balance I'd like to see all of us get away from anonymity and pseudonyms. I think we'd have a level playing field. (And it would have the advantage of drastically reducing the number of people online who falsely claim to be recon marines, rangers, geniuses etc . . .)
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 7.06.2009 @ 10:38
Anon:
What a load. No one is teaching history where Nazis are victims. They may be teaching it with a perspective that includes the GErman point of view. Not synonymous.
As for summoning courage, what are the soldiers, Marines, airmen and sailors in Afghanistan and Iraq? Cowards?
Typical self-pitying right-wing fantasy.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 6.06.2009 @ 15:58
I visited Normandy last year. The steepness of the climb from the beach is surprising. It's a nice beach, no real sign down there on the sand of what happened. And even if you know what happened there it's hard to see it. It's the graveyard at the top of the bluff that brings it home.
My kids wanted to play in the sand and surf and my first instinct was that it would be almost sacrilegious. But then it occurred to me that the little part-Jewish American boy and the Chinese-American girl playing on the beach was a pretty good symbol of what those great men had died to preserve.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 6.06.2009 @ 10:10
OBAMA'S CAIRO ADDRESS: DID IT LIVE UP TO THE HYPE?
A trip to Israel would have helped Bibi Netanyahu. Instead Obama went to Buchenwald, a gesture of solidarity with the Jewish people. It helps Israeli moderates.
It was elegant and subtle. A very smart play, particularly since he's doing it all so early in his term.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 5.06.2009 @ 14:16
Grrr, Muslims, you're soft, traitor, grrrr, must destroy, no apologies! Ow ow owooooo! Torture them all!
Ahem. Sorry. I think one of the PJM commenters bit me as I was passing through.
I'll tell you, Rick, your great failing as a right wing pundit is that you are intellectually honest. (Mostly.) You hear the small, still voice of The Truth calling to you and you listen to it. You should probably do something about that. (I understand it's now possible to get Hannity as a dietary supplement in convenient capsule.)
A lot of things the speech could have done, lot of things Obama could have added, but it was already long. And you wouldn't want to cut the portions where he went on about the long, historic importance of Morocco to the US, would you? Where the hell would we be with Morocco?
Really? Morocco? Yeah, okay. Plus the pens. Very important stuff involving pens . Who knew?
In any case, the mission is one of seduction. The Arab world believes X and we believe Y. In attempting to get them to move from X to Y we allow a watered-down version of X so that we can encourage reciprocation. He walked the "hard truths" right up to the edge of insult but not over. In a seduction you can say "I know we have our differences, and some of what you do drives me crazy." But you can't say, "You look fat in those jeans."
The primary audience was not Arab rulers who are usually only moved by Swiss bank accounts, tricked-out F-16's and the occasional threat. The audience was individual Muslims around the world. And I don't think he was looking for a pay-off in the short term. Obama plays a long game.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 5.06.2009 @ 08:32
OBAMA'S CAIRO SPEECH COULD HAVE BEEN BRAVER
Lionheart:
That would be some brilliant math. Except that I get paid by my publisher to write the book. Your purchase of same repays them incrementally for what they've paid me. (Until we get to a certain point.)
But I'm glad you liked the book.
And I have a suggestion: why don't we both stop being bitches, shake hands and have a virtual drink?
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 5.06.2009 @ 08:06
Gayle:
Let's parse, shall we?
Do you agree with your dear leader that Iran should have nuclear power? Why?
I think they have a right to peaceful and monitored civilian nuclear power. That's a matter of law. Civilian reactors are not synonymous with bombs or even with bomb-making. In any event, as you may have noticed, we seem unable to stop them. Mr. Bush didn't. So I think it's smart to acknowledge the obvious -- that they can have it if they want it -- and try to focus instead on convincing them to abjure weapons.
Do you have an alternative? Because I haven't heard one. If you want to go military you'll need to explain how you expect to keep the Persian Gulf open and protect US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Buy yourself a map.
Do you not agree with most of the world who considers Mahmoud Amahdinejad to be clinically insane?
No, I don't think he's insane. But it doesn't matter because Ahmadinejad is just a pimp. Khamenei is running the show. And he's shown no evidence of being insane. A pain in the ass yes, not crazy.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t believe in handing Roman candles and matches to small children or nuclear power to nutjobs who driven by their paranoia find themselves impelled to turn this entire world into a charcoal briquet!
What are we "handing" them? Seems to me they're doing it without our help. Although they no doubt have some nuclear expertise left over from the days when we were actively encouraging the Shah to develop nuclear power plants.
As far as I know the last thing we "handed them" was when Ronald Reagan sent them a Bible, a cake and some spare parts for missiles.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 4.06.2009 @ 14:25
