Home | Away

Apologies to somebody

Detroit, Detroit.  Got a hell of a hockey team.  Got a left-handed way of making a man sign up on that automotive dream.

Posted by on 06/05 at 10:02 AM

  1. No wavering. Pens in seven.

    Posted by  on  06/05  at  11:53 AM

  2. Misinformation followed us like a plague.

    Posted by Russell60  on  06/05  at  12:42 PM

  3. Got a left-handed way ...

    Playing the sinister card. If this were a baseball thread I’d point out that left-handed ain’t such a bad thing. Probably not a big factor in hockey beyond bruising a different side of an opponent’s face during the occasional impromptu hand-to-hand problem resolution sessions.

    Captcha: fall. GM.

    Posted by  on  06/05  at  12:57 PM

  4. What happened to Garfinkel?

    Posted by  on  06/05  at  01:16 PM

  5. Breaking news: Robing Soderling makes it to the Finals, Federer struggling against Juan Martin Del Potro. Will Federer crumble under the expectations and pressure of Nadal being out of it?

    From ESPN’s front page (I won’t bother to link cuz front page headline frequently changes/rotates)

    Fed Deficit:

    No Nadal ... no Djokovic ... no French Open final for Roger Federer? ‘Fraid so, unless Fed can rally to win the last two sets against Juan Martin Del Potro.

    espn’s live scores page is here.

    Posted by  on  06/05  at  01:28 PM

  6. 5: Federer just took the 4th set 6-1.

    Posted by  on  06/05  at  01:53 PM

  7. It’s just after breakfast, I’m on the road, and the weatherman lied.

    Posted by  on  06/05  at  02:53 PM

  8. Well, Federer advances.

    From espn’s front page:
    Roger Federer lives dangerously. After another palpitating five-set thriller in the French Open, a date with destiny awaits the 13-time Grand Slam winner in Sunday’s final

    Who to cheer for in the finals? Federer, who if he wins, will likely be considered the greatest of all time, or that impertinent upstart Soderling who has the guts to mock/tease Nadal?

    Posted by  on  06/05  at  04:35 PM

  9. What happened to Garfinkel?

    Now would be a good time to refer people to the mildly hilarious Garfinkel Minus Garfinkel.

    Posted by Michael  on  06/05  at  05:03 PM

  10. You know, I’d like to claim that that was a lame joke intentionally playing off the relative latter-day obscurity of Garfunkel, but that would be wrong. So I’ll admit that it was a lame joke that apparently unintentionally played off his latter-day obscurity. (Although it finally struck me why it just did not seem right about 45 minutes ago while I was getting a haircut and reading about the Pens in the paper. I scurried back here to correct it, but no, the internet was too fast.)

    Posted by  on  06/05  at  08:31 PM

  11. What happened to Garfinkel?

    Art’s been reading.

    Posted by  on  06/05  at  09:37 PM

  12. Am I right that D-Ho is now on Salon? Or am I just smashed form our end-of-academic year party with Russian colleagues? First Camille Paglia, now him - WTF?

    Posted by  on  06/05  at  09:59 PM

  13. Well, Professor h., I don’t think he’s a regular contributor any more, like he was back in the ‘90s, but yes, they will still put him in electronic print.  (I think he might even have had Salon columns before C-Pag.) And, well, his latest is a “defense” of Obama’s Cairo speech from his fellow conservatives, who are apparently too unhinged about it even for him.  Yes, Obama “rewrote” the “history of Muslim and Arab rapacity and bigotry”.  Yes, he somehow gave a stirring justification for the complete necessity of the Iraq War that he had pretended to be so opposed to (I guess calling it a “war of choice” was missing from DH’s copy of the transcript.).  Yes, he “falsely” suggested that Israel as well as the Palestinians might have been the teensiest bit unreasonable about the Occupied Territories.  But mostly, he smoothly and diplomatically stuck his thumb in the eye of the world’s Muslims over their benighted, democracy-hating ways, while simultaneously waggling a finger in admonition to shape up and pumping his fist and going “U.S.A.!” Neat trick, that.

    So, I would like a prescription for whatever Horologue* is taking, because it must be awesome.

    And yes, you’re smashed from your end-of-academic year party with your fellow travelers in the Fourth International.  It’s weird, no longer being officially affected by end-of-term.  Instead, I’m typing long rambling blog comments on a Friday night.  As usual.

    *He’s been like a stopped clock recently, which is a step up for him.

    Posted by  on  06/05  at  11:04 PM

  14. I always prefer songmeanings.net. They tell you what it means.

    Posted by Matt  on  06/05  at  11:13 PM

  15. So, I would like a prescription for whatever Horologue* is taking, because it must be awesome.

    Well, mds, I hope you have that sweet “socialist” U.S. government health care coverage like our elected reps., otherwise you’ll have to pay out of pocket for it due to your “pre-existing conditions” of reasonableness and rationality.

    Art’s been reading.

    Don’t ask me why, but I went ahead and randomly clicked on one of Art’s book list links to see what Art’s been reading. My random click: top of 2nd column, Feb.’90-Feb.’91. First thing on that list? Michel Foucault’s The History of Sexuality, Vol.1. I believe this Foucault person is someone with whom many folks here are familiar, no? Apparently, it didn’t make his “favorites” list.

    If someone wants to keep a personal list of every book they’ve ever read, fine. To put it up on your website seems just a tad bit creepy in a way I can’t really describe, but I know it when I feel it. Ya know?

    Posted by  on  06/06  at  12:13 AM

  16. Dave Zirin makes an interesting case why progressives should root for the Lakers (emphasis mine):

    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090622/zirin

    Snippet:

    If the players or teams don’t excite you, I humbly suggest that you choose your team based not on players, colors or coaches but on owners. Why? Because the victorious owner, whether Lakers boss Jerry Buss or Magic helmsman Richard DeVos, stands to make a fortune by winning, as well as elevate his personal profile. If you do choose to root for a team based on its owners, there is absolutely no contest for progressives: break out the lavender and gold and pray for a Lakers victory. It’s not that Buss is any great shakes; it’s the fact that DeVos operates the Magic like the sporting arm of a radical right- wing empire whose reach extends from makeup to militias.

    Posted by  on  06/06  at  01:04 AM

  17. I’m sorry.  I know I’ve been preoccupied today with doing stuff, and stuff, but I finally had a chance to read the full text of Obama’s speech and I have to say I think it was Teh Awesome.  Yes, I know where it cut corners.  Yes, I know where it didn’t fulfill The Left’s every desire.  Yes, I know it’s beyond batshit insane that the ‘gnuts are whining about how it didn’t include the word “terra.” But measured by the standard of ... I dunno, how about speeches by American Presidents, the Cairo speech was an extraordinary piece of work. 

    Christian, yes, you’re smashed.  There’s no way Salon would ever be so stupid as to publish David Horowitz.

    Posted by Michael  on  06/06  at  03:23 AM

  18. Michael: If you want to describe it as “cutting corners”, fine with me. I thought that speech was bollocks. But then it’s well known that I think this about all speeches that don’t “fulfill the Left’s every desire”. I also have this weird thing about judging a speech in the context of actions, and if those actions are “more violence in Afghanistan” and “at most wagging the finger at Israel while continuing to support the economic blockade against Gaza and asking for the ‘peace process’ (tm) to go on and on and on”, I’m just not that impressed. I suppose that makes me a crazy person. (And yes, I’m a little hungover and cranky. Not a lot though - Vodka doesn’t give bad hangovers, luckily.)

    Oaktown Girl: That is quite convincing. Lakers it is, then.

    Posted by  on  06/06  at  10:44 AM

  19. Also, our great president has apparently fully embraced show trials at this point. Torture people to confession, and then let them plead guilty. Welcome to the WAAGNFNP, Mr. President.

    Captcha: “faith”, as in “sometimes hard not to lose it”.

    Posted by  on  06/06  at  10:47 AM

  20. Hmmm, seems that Discover the Nutwork has cleaned up some of their entries in the past three years!  Here’s the original entry on David Talbot in all its glorious wingnuttiness.

    And Christian, did you miss the bit about openly calling for an end to settlements in the Occupied Territories and the bit about calling Palestine “Palestine”?  Can you refresh my memory as to when the last time an American president said, as part of an outreach to Muslims, “Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.” Because, again, the relevant standard here would seem to me to be speeches by American presidents.  No, ignoring that stuff doesn’t make you a crazy person.  It merely makes you a person who gauges such speeches according to whether they fulfill the left’s every desire, pretty much precisely as I suggested.

    And yes, violence in Afghanistan is bad.  I’m still waiting to hear the plan that secures a full American withdrawal from the region without giving radical Islamists free rein to do whatever.

    Posted by  on  06/06  at  11:03 AM

  21. Here are some presidents that called the settlements unacceptable: Nixon. Reagan. Bush 1. It’s certainly been official policy since forever, with the exception of Bush 2. Of course Obama is better than he was, big deal. What you apparently missed is that the administration may say settlement expansion is unacceptable, but has already ruled out doing much about it (no cuts in loan guarantees, or military and economic support are envisioned). Which makes my impression that we are talking about finger wagging here quite accurate.

    I’m not looking for Obama to do the right thing - obviously he won’t. But at the least he might be asked to compare favorably to various Republican presidents. He doesn’t even measure up on that extremely weak curve. As a piece of political rhetoric, his speech was brilliant of course. Is that what we should be satisfied with nowadays?

    As for Afghanistan, I don’t accept your premise that a withdrawal from Afghanistan would give “radical Islamists” (whoever they are, apparently it’s just one amorphous mass of bad people) “free rein to do whatever” (whatever “whatever” is, although I’m sure it’s scary). I assume you recognize that a permanent occupation would be untenable, so what’s your plan? It can’t be “just keep going until things magically improve enough we can withdraw without radical Islamists doing whatever”, because that wouldn’t be a plan at all.

    Captcha: “blood”, as in, much more—will be spilled before it’s over.

    Posted by  on  06/06  at  11:42 AM

  22. To add: if I sound impatient, it’s because I am. Sorry about that. I think Obama, who has a much better understanding of the Palestinian issue (due to his history in Chicago) than previous presidents, could do so much more and I find it dispiriting that he doesn’t. Again, I don’t expect him to be an antizionist - he wouldn’t last long in imperial politics if he was. And yes, I do recognize that even a difference in rhetoric can make it easier for Palestinian solidarity activists to put our points across, and act.

    Still why so fucking tentative? Why the embrace of the same old “radical Islam” nonsense, the pushing of the same failed Oslo-type stringing out of Palestinian aspirations? Is it really too much to ask for some kind of action that isn’t obviously designed to let Israel finish of the Palestinian people in peace, instead of to achieve peace in the full sense of the word?

    Posted by  on  06/06  at  01:39 PM

  23. As a piece of political rhetoric, his speech was brilliant of course. Is that what we should be satisfied with nowadays?

    Insofar as it sets the standard by which US actions are henceforth to be measured, yes.  In and for itself, of course not.  Anyway, here’s Ian Williams’ take, because I know you’re not really dismissing the difference between this rhetoric and the “we’re against the settlements but you can build more if you like” US policy since 1967.

    Posted by Michael  on  06/06  at  04:39 PM

  24. otherwise you’ll have to pay out of pocket for it due to your “pre-existing conditions” of reasonableness and rationality.

    ?? Oh, I don’t think I have to worry about that.

    Insofar as it sets the standard by which US actions are henceforth to be measured, yes.

    Yeah, I’m too decaffeinated at the moment to bother linking directly to the relevant enormous jpegs, but Haaretz and the J Post both give the impression that the US is perceived as at least slightly more serious this time, and report the apparent consternation in the current Israeli government.  It’s still not particularly bold, but it’s an improvement, and he’s been able to keep Congress in line while doing it (the Achilles heel of previous attempts).  Even Rep. Ackerman had to “clarify” his Politico quote.

    Plus, you know, bonus points for using the Qur’an, the Talmud, and the New Testament.  Especially given the easy setup invoking the Qur’an hands Fox News.

    Posted by  on  06/06  at  05:21 PM

  25. Ali Abunimah’s take. Of course he’s one of the “Left” immediately dismissed by Williams with a “but-they-would-say-that” formulation.

    Interestingly, Williams (in contrast to Abuminah) does not take Obama at his word. Instead, he divines some double-super-secret coded plan of action from the speech. Speaking of action, Bush 1 did act. And indeed, I don’t dismiss the difference between that action and this rhetoric at all.

    Anyway, feel free to tell me to shut up, Michael, I don’t want to derail the upcoming hockey fun.

    Posted by  on  06/06  at  05:41 PM

  26. Not at all, Christian.  You’re right about Gaza and about Guantanamo.  About our points of disagreement, they’re legit.  For example:

    As for Afghanistan, I don’t accept your premise that a withdrawal from Afghanistan would give “radical Islamists” (whoever they are, apparently it’s just one amorphous mass of bad people) “free rein to do whatever” (whatever “whatever” is, although I’m sure it’s scary).

    I wonder why you dismiss the legacy of the Taliban so easily.  Most human rights groups did not and do not.  From the public stonings of women to the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas, they were international pariahs, and rightly so.  Oh, not to speak of the hand-in-glove relationship with You Know Who and the safe haven for his merry band.  No, not David Horowitz.

    I assume you recognize that a permanent occupation would be untenable, so what’s your plan?

    Finally someone asks!  Now this blog comment section can save the region.  Gradual withdrawal combined with massive humanitarian relief and the establishment of an international protectorate administered by the UN along the lines of UNMIK.

    As for Abuminah, again, right on Gaza, but color me unimpressed by this:

    Nowhere were these blindspots more apparent than his statements about Palestine/Israel. He gave his audience a detailed lesson on the Holocaust and explicitly used it as a justification for the creation of Israel. “It is also undeniable,” the president said, “that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation.”

    Suffered in pursuit of a homeland? The pain of dislocation? They already had a homeland. They suffered from being ethnically cleansed and dispossessed of it and prevented from returning on the grounds that they are from the wrong ethno-national group. Why is that still so hard to say?

    Yes, Obama acknowledged the “undeniable” “dislocation” of Palestinians—but he didn’t say they were ethnically cleansed.  This counts as a reasonable criticism of the speech?

    Now for hockey!

    Posted by Michael  on  06/06  at  06:47 PM

  27. It’s interesting that Abuinimah didn’t like the speech, seeing “Bush in sheep’s clothing”; the Israeli government didn’t like the speech, and is simultaneously defensive and worried; portions of the Israeli Left liked the speech, partly because of the Israeli government’s reaction; and the American Religious Right and Fox News hated the speech, because it surrendered to Islam and betrayed Israel.  Can we at least derive some enjoyment from American right-wing news outlets reviving the “secret Muslim” routine even while al Qaeda calles Obama a “secret Jew”?

    Anyway, it’s the speech plus the last White House meeting plus the Capitol Hill rebuff, etc, that Bibi is apparently going by in displaying ever more twitchiness.

    But yes, none of it will matter unless there are material penalties to Israel for continued obstructionism.  And GHWB found out how hard it could be to make any material penalties stick.

    Wait, there’s some sort of hockey event going on?

    Posted by  on  06/06  at  06:53 PM

  28. And indeed, “didn’t use the actual words ‘ethnic cleansing’” is on a par with “didn’t mention ‘terror’ at all” as a criticism of the speech’s content.  Or invoking “freedom to wear the hajib [sic]” without explicitly speaking about “freedom not to wear the burka.”

    Oh, that hockey event.  Prepare to become clean-shaven upon Detroit’s eventual triumph, Professor.

    Posted by  on  06/06  at  07:02 PM

  29. Hockey? You mean field hockey? (Note hidden reference to Pakistan.) Anyway, on to hockey n’ stuff.

    Did you guys notice some upstart won the women’s side in Paris? Didn’t is use to be the case that women’s tennis was totally non-competitive?

    P.S.: I’d like to continue the other, political, debate at some point, but not today. I am currently engaged in a war, ie, cleaning my apartment. Motto: “We may lose the war, but I’m sure as hell going to win the battle.”

    Captcha: “Record” as in, “let the record show I’m right and Michael’s wrong”.

    Posted by  on  06/06  at  07:04 PM

  30. Okay, I can’t let that pass. Come on mds (and Michael), you know as well as I do what Abuminah is complaining about there: that in Obama’s formulation there’s simply no agency involved in the “dislocation”. It’s “Islamic extremists” shooting rockets at Israel, but apparently the Palestinians were dislocated by force of nature. Maybe it’s somewhat understandable that a Palestinian would be pissed off by that. In any event it’s completely different from “he didn’t mention terrorism”.

    Posted by  on  06/06  at  07:07 PM

  31. Hope everyone enjoys their hockey game program related activities.

    Posted by  on  06/06  at  07:23 PM

  32. you know as well as I do what Abuminah is complaining about there: that in Obama’s formulation there’s simply no agency involved in the “dislocation”.

    Really?  Because Israel still somehow managed to get the idea he was talking about them, as did the American right-wing press.  It didn’t even require “Palestians are the victims of ethnic cleansing by Israel,” a formulation that would have gotten George Mitchell dumped in the Mediterranean and Congress unreservedly returning to its Israel-uber-alles chest-thumping.  But at least it would have been refreshing to hear an American President admit it.  In the meantime, I’ll stick with the Israeli press noting that Bibi might have to choose between Obama and his own governing coalition.

    All that said, I myself feel deep-down that I’m whistling in the dark here, since it certainly is true that even the good stuff we’ve seen from Obama so far has tended to fall into the “too little, too late” category.  Still, you go swirling into global conflagration with the president you have.  Enjoy the hockey game, everyone.

    Posted by  on  06/06  at  08:13 PM

  33. Oaktown Girl: That is quite convincing. Lakers it is, then.

    Well, christian, as of now the good news appears to be that we may not need to actually personally cheer the Lakers on to victory. If the game one blowout is any indication, they’ll pull off the series without our help. And that’s good because as you well know, actively cheering for the Lakers is not an appealing prospect in the least.

    Posted by  on  06/06  at  10:58 PM

  34. I used to think the solar system would allow us to enjoy the life we have, and that we can question and challenge one another about this or that premise and construct.  Now i have had my mind shattered by that strange math of probability, and feel so craving every moment i am gifted by the arrow of time to have in this space/place.

    Posted by  on  06/07  at  10:06 PM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: Game 5 open thread!

Previous entry: Ain't too proud to bleg

<< Back to main