Would it be bad form to point out that you also didn't expect quite that many ladies to say "No thankyou", or Bethelham Mines to reach 27, or liver spots, or that there weren't any WOMD in Iraq?
Yes, It would be bad form.
george
You got another loud burst of laughter with that.
I even heard the laughter in California!
Just trying to stay even, Blatham.
A couple of weeks past, Donald Rumsfeld was interviewed on the PBS Newshour. In the course of that interview, he pulled a little trick, and it's one we've heard him (and others) use before. Lehrer asked Rumsfeld a 'what if' question, as in 'what if the body counts begin to go up?' or 'what if you don't get the resolution at the UN which you wish?'. Rumsfeld's reply was "I don't do hypotheticals."
This is so patently false that I just sat shaking my head in dismay. This morning I bumped into a wonderful piece by Kinsley on exactly this topic.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42250-2003Oct3.html
Read Kinsley, Blatham, and wonder whether you happen to have heard the pretty final demolition of Wesley Clark on NPR this afternoon?
Blatham,
I believe I saw the Rumsfeld interview to which you referred. Lehrer was trying to corner Rumsfeld, as you described, and Rumsfeld (properly, in my view) refused, also just as you described. I also read the piece by Kinsley you attached - well written and engaging it was, but it overlooked some crucial points. Let me explain.
During the interview Rimsfeld had two relevant roles & responsibilities. The first as spokesman for the government communicating to the people through the dialogue with Lehrer- the second as Secretary of Defense, responsible to the President and the people for the ongoing transition in Iraq. It is beyond doubt that answering the hypothetical questions being posed would be counter to his interests and responsibilities as leader of the transition effort. Equally evident is that fact that in refusing to answer them he reduced his effectiveness as spokesman and interlocutor. Did he do wrong? Clearly his leadership role is more important than this particular dialogue. Equally clear is the fact that he has many other available ways of communicating with the people that do not require the unfavorable tradeoff imposed on him by the questions.
For his part Kinsley evaluated only effectiveness as an interlocutor in his piece. His conclusions are OK as far as he goes, but he does not address the situation at hand here.
Tartarin...no, I missed it...busy ripping up carpet (only to find a floor in far worse shape than the one corner I checked - of course).
george
I'll see if I can find a transcript
I heard the NPR/Clark report, they started with touting his brilliance and how he rose to high military ranks, there was no task he couldn't handle. Played clips of fellow military mates who held a high opinion of him.
Next they played clips from fellow military who held a low opinion of him, not doubting his integrity, but recalling how he did whatever it took to climb the ladder, his arrogance and the 'supreme being' side of the general. How he had a tendency to go around rules to achieve personal agenda's.
Nothing I or most have probably already read or heard.
So what ! My kind of guy ! Certainly he took on a hidebound establishment in the Army - one that had decided that its highest priority was a new "mobile" 85 ton artillery piece. No argument about his ambition, or that it would be nice if that could be muted a bit while his other qualities remained unaffected. Until that distant day I'll simply be glad he is there.
I'm kind of big on Rhodes Scholars...Clark, Clinton, and Christopherson, and a local lady who, I was recently informed by an old English prof, took a thesis that I'd casually advanced in a lecture on Steinbeck (he related it to her two or three years later) and who then wrote what the prof said was 'the best essay I've ever read'. He recommended her for the scholarship, and she was approved. Thus, some teenie little whining part of me has arrived at Oxford.
My father was one. I think what many don't know about Rhodes Scholars is that they don't make it on intellectual achievement alone (though your Steinbeck story is a hoot, Blatham!). They need to have a life -- athletic skills, teaching ability, a connection with the world outside the ivory tower... But Clark is evidently what we used to call a climber. Not a nice guy. He's what might be called a Rhodes-Scholar-but.
I don't think that this is of great interest or leads to some new insightful perseptions - but at the first A2K London meeting I stayed in a b & b in Rhodes' birthtown :wink:
Wasn't Rhode's residence in Cape Town, South Africa?
tartarin
You keep pulling these little nifties out of your pocket. I think it is time you sat down and began writing about this remarkable life you've bumbled through.
Bumbled?
Bumbled?
BUMBLED?[/i]
"Bumble" can also mean "to make a humming or droning sound; to buzz."
I banish you to Rhodesia, CI.
(sweat dripping on keyboard)...uh...no, no...you've got me all wrong here...it's...uh...yeah! It's like that Emily Dickinson poem where she describes bumblebees as "buchaneers of buzz"...see, so it's like a cool thing with eye patches and spitting and pillage!
