My comments and responses both here and on another thread were not as respectful or as kind as they should have been. I knew it at the time, but still I pressed “submit.”

Yesterday was the National Day of Prayer. I spent time with the Lord that I’d been neglecting ever since I began getting overly caught up in online reading and posting. And my behavior has reflected that.

Now, perhaps, you see why I shrink from calling myself a Christian. The calling is so high and I fall so short. But I do believe – in Him – who forgives me my failings. I hope you’ll find in your heart room to do the same.

In this universe, it’s an elaborate rationalization.

Let’s take one example.

Afghanistan.

There is no serious person, in either party, in American politics, who is not deeply concerned about the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan.

Period. Full stop. Hasta la vista, baby.

As a typical news paper’s commentator you list “facts” that have as a goal to provoke suspense and a pleasant sensation of approaching catastrophe. I understand that you don’t have time to analyze the facts which should demonstrate the objectivity of your “opinion”. I don’t speak about uncertainty of the concept of “fact”: it is another topic. An example of your catastrophic fact’s catalogue: “Crashing property values. A worldwide credit crunch. Wall Street bailouts. Record oil prices. Record gasoline prices. Rising unemployment. The dollar at a record low against the euro. … The Afghan fight has been going increasingly poorly over the past two years.” As in a suspense novel (I confess I detest this popular genre) you create the sensation of the nearing collapse of the entire World.
I’ll take only two facts from your black list: euro and Afghanistan. “Low” dollar and “high” euro mean a negative situation for the European economics: inflations, unemployment and decreasing of exportations. You can see European panic in economic news papers. I’m European. I know it from my personal experience. For example: to buy the books of good editions in the US costs me much less than in any European country. So if I have choice I buy books in the US and not in Europe. I image that less rich countries than Europe, prefer to buy American goods and not European thanks to “low” dollar. So your statement about dollar and euro has a value of an abstract “fact” without the contents.
Afghanistan. In 7 lines you tell the story of Afghanistan from the Soviet invasion up to present days with which you finish your “reportage” from “La planète des singes”. I should say that Pierre Boulle’s novel gives much more information even about Afghanistan than many American and European papers.
Polls. You use polls as objective facts. In our “scientific” times polls have replaced astrology. The kings and all ancient politicians, before begining any important busyness, asked their official astrologers which consulted the planets. So the astrology was a very serious and “objective” science, based on the observation of the movements of the celestial corps and not on capricious “opinions” of “average” individuals. So if I had to make a choice between polls and astrology I would choose astrology. Fortunately, I am not a news paper’s writer or politician. So I need not make this choice. It would be interesting to know what American astrologers say about… about the possibility of a gay becoming US President. Why not, if St. Obamus (who, as some say, makes miracles) has all probabilities to realize his father’s dream?

Hyperpartisans from both sides are not very constructive. And for the record, the only people banned from my site have been nutrootsers, not wingnuts.

New West Notes is in the midst of a tech transition. And is having a number of glitches associated with tech transitions.

On a different topic, the comments by some about Afghanistan and Iraq, I hope they remember that one of the biggest reasons for the destruction of the Soviet Empire was that the Soviets overextended themselves when they went into Afghanistan. No matter how rich and powerful we are, we do have limits.

Just to clarify: I’m a former Democrat, but I’m not a Republican. I’ve always been a bit of a libertarian (small ‘l’), but I never realized it until I got serious about politics (post-9/11). The Nader vote was a protest vote. I’m no longer a Democrat for fairly obvious reasons. So, Bill, I think you were preparing to lecture us all about your own steely neutrality in regards to politics and your undeniable, demonstrated ability for flawless insight about the voting public ….

“… nonetheless says everything is going great in Afghanistan …”

Is that what I said? Is this what you, the human fulcrum who changed the course of an election (and therefore the course of human history), gleaned from what I wrote? Interesting. Here’s what I actually said:

“All I did was have some fun by extrapolating your statement out to 2002, which is round about the time we all started to hear that Afghanistan is ‘getting worse’. I’ve [heard] this tale for six years. Why should I believe the cries of wolf now?”

I noted that the Sky if Falling stories about Afghanistan have been around since 2002. I asked why Bill Bradley’s little iteration of this meme should be heeded. You extrapolate from this that I believe ‘everything is going great in Afghanistan’.

Geez, Bill, I thought you were a bit hackish, but now I just think you’re not too bright, which gives me yet another reason to doubt your Chicken Little judgments on Afghanistan. Although there is some hope: A stopped clock is right twice a day, and don’t worry, Afghanistan is guaranteed to have some really nasty patches in the road ahead.

So to summarize, aside from being wrong, you’re right, except in regards to usage of the word ‘critique’, where you’re neither right nor wrong, just foolish to bring it up and consider it intelligent commentary while simultaneously complaining about lack of intelligent commentary, good examples of which apparently include snarky meaningless comments on zen, cigars, relativistic children, and pseudo-literate references to Freud and conspiracy-mongering. Meanwhile, your support for removing Saddam in 2003 means your critique of Afghanistan in 2008 is immune to criticism, your strategic vote for McCain means you’re not in the tank for Obama, and your publishing a few articles means your audience is incapable of parsing out your true political inclinations because your mastery of language and craft leaves Shakespeare and Twain in the dust.

Is that a fairly accurate critique? Or am I being too critical?

Wow. I guess it was actually you who propelled McCain to the nomination, eh? Suffer from delusions of grandeur, much? Of course, maybe you think writing a story about McCain means that you’re incapable of telegraphing your support for Obama when writing other stories. Do you really think you have such tight control of your craft, and that you’re an intellectual juggernaut to boot? (I think you do.)

“Critique, incidentally, is not a verb, and I supported the invasion of Iraq.” “… had bigger problems in his/her posts than sloppy use of the language.”

Setting aside the ridiculousness of a sentence construction whereby you admonish verb usage (wrongly) while noting your support for Iraq (?), this is what’s known as ‘downstream’ thinking. Amateurs think language is static and usage set in stone. Linguists know otherwise, to wit:

Usage Note: Critique has been used as a verb meaning ‘to review or discuss critically’ since the 18th century, but lately this usage has gained much wider currency, in part because the verb criticize, once neutral between praise and censure, is now mainly used in a negative sense. But this use of critique is still regarded by many as pretentious jargon, although resistance appears to be weakening. In our 1997 ballot, 41 percent of the Usage Panel rejected the sentence “As mock inquisitors grill him, top aides take notes and critique the answers with the President afterward.” Ten years earlier, 69 percent disapproved of this same sentence. “Resistance is still high when a person is critiqued”: 60 percent of the Usage Panel rejects its use in the sentence “Students are taught how to do a business plan and then are critiqued on it.” Thus, it may be preferable to avoid this word. There is no exact synonym, but in most contexts one can usually substitute go over, review, or analyze. Note, however, that critique is widely accepted as a noun in a neutral context; 86 percent of the Panel approved of its use in the sentence “The committee gave the report a thorough critique and found it both informed and intelligent.”

So congratulation, Bill: You just embarrassed yourself. But I thank you, though: I haven’t really worried much about grammar for decades — not since I was in middle school, in fact. Let us all know when you’ve gotten to the point that you worry less about grammar and usage and more about the soundness of your ideas, and by extension your ability to defend them when critiqued.

“What I would like to see here is an actual discussion. Which is why I bothered to corrrect your statement.”

Not true. Like most amateurs you take things far too personally. It’s fairly obvious that you fancy yourself, or aspire to be, someone like Michael Barone, but something tells me you don’t have a library stacked with 3000 books, most of which have been read (with comprehension), as does Michael and numerous others in the professional commentariat who are worth reading. You’ve got a long way to go, baby.