Comments Posted By Jeff G
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 10 Comments


In questioning Pat’s intentions and motives in writing the post, Goldstein goes too far. Unless he has been vouchsafed the ability to peer into the souls of men and glean intent, I would suggest he stick with what he recommends and fights for so tirelessly – a literal interpretation of what is written.

Actually, that would make me a New Critic, and I'm anything but.

When we read to interpret, we read with an eye to intent. And given that we CAN'T peer into people's souls in order to be sure, we are left to do our best in reconstructing intent from textual (inter, intra-, meta-, etc) clues, context, and a host of other things, including convention, biography, and on and on.

In literature, we can extrapolate intent from what we know about the author and his times. Can we not grant the same courtesy to Mr. Frey? Pat has not shown himself to be a link whore in the past nor has he necessarily proven to be the kind of blogger who sets himself up as the conscience of the right. (That job is taken and I will not, under any circumstances, give it up.)

What we know of an author doesn't guarantee a proper reading, or else Wifey would be a children's story.

I am perfectly willing to grant Patterico any courtesy. But I read his post with an eye toward intent.

My interpretation relied upon the timing of the piece, the way it deviated from Pat's prior take on Obama ("pond scum" -- but suddenly "good" pond scum), my belief that Patterico is too smart to conflate promises with actions, and my feeling that the piece was written with a political purpose in mind, namely, to pointedly distance itself from the kinds of posts written after the 2004 elections.

I thought the piece was considered in advance should Obama win.

Subsequently, Patterico has done nothing to disabuse me of those beliefs. He has talked much of lessons and "how we are being watched" for our reactions. These kinds of defenses only deepen my conviction in that initial reading.

Where this has all been blown out of proportion, however, is the idea that I think Pat somehow fundamentally dishonest. I don't. Nor do I think he was looking for links.

Suffice to say I just thought his post engaged in precisely the kind of political pragmatism that has a tendency to debase language and lends itself to moral equivalence, and I wanted to point that out in a way that caused a bit of a ripple.

Mission Accomplished, I guess.

Comment Posted By Jeff G On 9.11.2008 @ 22:33


I would have sent me, but then, that's only because I would have mistakenly thought there'd be an open bar.

Comment Posted By Jeff G On 10.08.2007 @ 10:39


I'm going to demand the airline security screeners produce a warrant next time they try to search me.

After all, if it's "unreasonable" to listen in on phone conversations without a warrant when one end of the conversation is terrorist-connected, then surely in is unreasonable to search me, who just wants to make it back to the east coast to visit my family.

Comment Posted By Jeff G On 17.08.2006 @ 17:53


If I lived your reality, I’d probably enjoy the alternative too.

Yeah, it sucks playing with my kid all the day while you're off positioning cash registers and flirting with teenage sales girls who smile perfunctorily (you're the boss, after all), but who secretly find you kinda creepy.

And really now… two hours to come up with the snappy retail banter? No wonder you’ve never been published.

Sure, if by "never" you mean "I meant to leave out 'never'".

And why would you think it took me two hours to come up with that response? Because two hours passed before I responded?

Let me ask you, do you use the same logic to brag to your friends that you can go at it in bed for, like, days at a time?

Anyway, off topic, but -- if I'm nice to you from here on out, what do you say about maybe hooking me up with your GAP employee discount? I'm in the market for a couple of scarves and maybe a sweater vest.

Comment Posted By Jeff G On 26.07.2006 @ 12:12

By "working for a living," Tbogg, are you doing that Greenwaldean redefining thing whereby "working" means only, say, "making sure the counter tops are ergonomically situated so that the wage-slaves working the cash registers at Gap stores cannot later sue for instances of carpal tunnel"? Or will you allow working to include self-employment -- which, in my case, allows me to spend entire days with my kid and still make a decent living while you are stuffing yourself into a starched white oxford and a sport coat each morning so that you can provide the final word on where best to place thermal scanners at Old Navy?

Incidentally, you seem inordinately concerned with my use of prescription drugs. But you needn't be. Truth is, I just kinda dig what they do to me.

Which, if it helps you wrap your mind around it, picture yourself in your salad days, surrounded by freshly-shipped low-rise briefs and garters.

Comment Posted By Jeff G On 25.07.2006 @ 22:56

Somehow being called a coward by an anonymous former mail-order underwear salesman (and current czar of touchscreen retail technology) doesn't quite have the bite you'd expect it would.

Go figure.

Comment Posted By Jeff G On 25.07.2006 @ 20:38


Thanks for the kind words, Rick!

Comment Posted By Jeff G On 19.12.2005 @ 22:54


Just to follow up, somebody left this in my comments section:

Just to nail it down, page 7 of the NRP states:

"For Incidents of National Significance that are Presidentially declared disasters or emergencies, Federal Support to States is delivered in accordance with relevant provisions of the Stafford Act."

It goes on to note that all Presidentially declared disasters and emergencies under the Stafford Act are Incidents of National Significance.

Stafford provides for funding. It does not provide for the takeover of state sovereignty.

Comment Posted By Jeff G On 13.09.2005 @ 18:49


Re: incident of national significance and those 24 hours.

I'm just going to reprint a post from my comments section a while back (in response to a Kos diarist who posted this very thing) and you tell me where I'm going wrong. And I mean that humbly. I'm still trying to sort all of this out:

Show me one instance wherein the provisions outlined above weren’t followed. FEMA did pre-stage, the President did act pro-actively (he declared the state of emergency and readied the pipeline for the requests for funding and aid made by the Governor, etc.).

The only thing new here (to me) is the section on DCSA. And even that I’m not catching what the gotcha is. Sure, Georgia10 wants to read this through the lens of hindsight to argue that the DoD should have put troops in BEFORE THE CIVIL UNREST AND THE DESERTION of 2/3 of local law enforcement (when? Before the hurricane hit? Wouldn’t their heavy equipment then be underwater, too?), but from what I just read, the DoD would’ve had to be mindreaders to pre-place military troops in the city, and to do so would have to supercede the Governor’s authority—something I’m not sure the lefties really want Rummy doing.

Look at the language (from then National Plan): When such conditions exist and time does not permit approval from higher headquarters, local military commands and responsible officers from the DOD are authorized by DOD directive and pre-approved by the Secretary of Defense to take necessary action to response to the request of civil authorities.

Am I missing something? Was the Governor ever unreachable? Because if not, such conditions never existed.

The fact is, Blanco was reachable and still (ostensibly) in charge of the local operations. And because she didn’t want the federal troops, the President deferred—though he pressed her to take control.

Then there’s this:

With widespead looting and lawlessness, Posse Comitatus made it legally problematic to send in federal troops precisely because it forbids them a law enforcement role. To allow such a role, the President would have to declare an “insurrection,” which he arguably could do. (But note that Bush’s enemies have regularly been railing against such use at least since 9/11/01 and would of course declare that the claim of “insurrection” was illegal—and even an impeachable offense).

So once again, it looks like a damned if you do/damned if you don’t situation for the Administration—one that he’s put in because left is looking for ways to sink him, I might add.

Let me add, as well, that provisions were in place by way of FEMA coordinating with the Red Cross, but they were blocked from making it to the Superdome with pre-positioned supplies by state action.

So the incidents of national significance matters only insofar as bringing in extra security is involved. The best way to do that was to call in more guard units (who aren't constrained by posse comitatus, and -- more importantly, were able to arrive sooner, according to the Bushies (via the NYT) -- something that Blanco finally made happen Wednesday by requesting additional troops.

Where am I going wrong?

Comment Posted By Jeff G On 13.09.2005 @ 00:11


Very well put, Rick.

Also intentionally bowdlerized from the oft-cited example of US malfeasance in Gitmo offered by the Durbin and his fellow handwringers on the left is that it is not, in fact, representative of the treatment of all detainees -- but was rather part of the interrogation of a particularly important prisoner.

Comment Posted By Jeff G On 18.06.2005 @ 18:35

Powered by WordPress



Pages (1) : [1]

«« Back To Stats Page