Reading the quotes from Europeans about the Paul Wolfowitz World Bank nomination in the Washington Post, you might wonder if democracy promotion means anything to them at all. Here’s the first one:
“We were led to believe that the neo-conservatives were losing ground,” said Michael Cox, a professor of international relations at the London School of Economics. “But clearly the revolution is alive and well.” He added that despite recent efforts from Washington to mend relations, “Europeans are still inclined deep down to suspect the worst, and this appointment won’t go down too well.”
Worst of what? More scenes of a million people marching for democracy in the streets of Beirut, next time in Teheran maybe. Yes, Mr. Wolfowitz has a lot to be ashamed of Mr. Cox, doesn’t he? You need not be Sigmund Freud or his daughter to realize Euro academics of this stripe see Wolfowitz et al through a prism so distorted and contorted by envy they end up looking up their own nostrils. What will they say if five years from now the whole Middle East is democratic?
Well, who cares really? At least they’re angry and jealous, not dumb like the peabrain from Greenpeace who was quoted as follows: [It is] “a disaster to put the World Bank, which should be delivering sustainable development, into the hands of a man who clearly will put U.S. and oil industry interests first.” What are the odds this bozo has any idea what Wolfowitz’s ecological views are? A hundred to one? A thousand to one? A million to one? I’ll go with the latter but maybe the real motivation behind this inane comment is organizational fund-raising. [You're being charitable.-ed. That's what my mother taught me.]
More ominously, French Foreign Minister Michael Barnier responded this way to a reporter’s question: “It’s a proposal. We shall examine it in the context of the personality of the person you mention and perhaps in view of other candidates.”
No surprise there. Monsieur Barnier may actually have something to fear. He represents the country often regarded as one of the most corrupt in the developed world. I’d gamble on Wolfowitz being harder on kleptocrats than, say, Volcker will be at the UN. Not great news for the Chiracoisie. Of course, they may be on their way out anyway.
Giving the WaPo its due, they do end with what seems to be a pro-Wolfowitz quote:
Francois Heisbourg, a leading French defense analyst who knows Wolfowitz, said the first reaction of many is “fear and loathing,” but added, “Paul is a man who has intellectual depth. He’s not a one-agenda, single-point man.” He said that as U.S. ambassador to Indonesia, Wolfowitz helped steer the country toward democracy.
“He does have the breadth of experience and range of interests that could serve him well in this kind of soft-power job,” Heisbourg said. “He’s probably more suited to this soft power position than his hard-power position at the Pentagon.”
Er… wait a minute. Wasn’t it that “hard-power position” that helped give Iraq a democracy which seems to be spreading all over the place? Shhh… Don’t tell the Washington Post. It might wake somebody up.
UPDATE: Austin Bay’s take on the Wolfowitz nomination here. As usual, I agree with him. [You guys do think alike on this stuff.-ed. Yes, but he has militar experience. I'm a chickenhawk.]
MORE: Normblog discusses the Guardian reaction.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
36 Comments
1. Kevin P:Roger:
President Bush nominates a brilliant man who would devestate any of the J-school hacks who are moaning about his selection in any form of debate. And the LA Times suggests a rock singer who is a nice man but when compared to Wolfowitz does not measure up.And the writers at the Times have the nerve to accuse President Bush of being stupid!
Mar 16, 2005 - 4:49 pm 2. Terrye:My guess is Greenpeace would have said that about anyone that Bush nominated. After all Bush failed to bully the Senate into ratifying Kyoto and he is allowing oil drilling in Alaska. Same old same old.
But I think Wolfowitz will be a welcome change from the usual suspects. It seems to me that the world bank which owes much of its funding to the US has strayed away from the purpose of helping the world’s poor. And I mean the poor, not the parasites that live off of them.
And no doubt there are a lot of folks in the third world and Europe who won’t like change.
Mar 16, 2005 - 5:29 pm 3. triticale:It would be interesting to watch a debate between Wolfowitz and Bono. The rock star who is a nice man is not stupid as such people go but I think such an event would be rather devestating.
Mar 16, 2005 - 5:30 pm 4. photoncourier.blogspot.com:The NYT referred to Wolfowitz as an “ideologue”…I think he’s actually a different kind of i-world, and idealist. He may well also be an innovator. Thus, as head of the World Bank, he might actually care about getting the job of economic development done, and have the forcefulness to try new ideas in getting it done…as opposed to many members of the “international development community” who seem more concerned about being “clubable.”
Mar 16, 2005 - 5:35 pm 5. richard mcenroe:“‘We were led to believe that the neo-conservatives were losing ground,’ said Michael Cox, a professor of international relations at the London School of Economics. ” Gee, led by who? *g* That’s what you get for reading nothing but the Guardian and the Independent…
Mar 16, 2005 - 6:00 pm 6. richard mcenroe:I have no time for Greenpeace. They make it impossible for me to enjoy myself at the beach. Everytime I lay back and close my eyes, a bunch of earnest, unshaven women start trying to drag me back into deeper water…
Mar 16, 2005 - 6:26 pm 7. Rick Ballard:Biden and Leahy support Wolfowitz. (I think I need to lay down.)
So it’s only the reactionary MSM, some Eurodopes and Ms. Botox with twisted knickers. No confirmation hearsings are necessary and W has a headlock on the number of European leaders necessary for authorization. I wish Wolfowitz the best of luck.
Mar 16, 2005 - 6:39 pm 8. charlotte:Bush is foisting some long overdue and effective “hard power” on the world in our interests (and in its, although it resents/ secretly respects it): the chutzpah of Bolton; the brains of Wolfowitz; the chutzpah, brains and power boots of our men and women in uniform; and the chutzpah, brains, power boots, and smiles of Rice.
EU/UN soft power is so disappointing by contrast. Wolfowitz will bring strength and better purpose to the World Bank. He won’t go soft.
Mar 16, 2005 - 7:31 pm 9. Barry Dauphin:Bono seems to be a nice man, perhaps even a decent one, but he sees the world through rose colored glasses (literally). Not someone who should be in charge of piles of loot.
The EU continues to play out its hallucination: the population isn’t aging, bribing dictators will keep us safe and won’t spoil our souls, vanity protests are a sign of power, cutting the work week will create jobs, everyone cares about French cinema, we can pile all the Muslims into ghettos as long as we support Hamas at the drop of a hat, cutting our military will decrease the risk of attack, those Iranian missiles won’t be aimed at us, etc. Sophisticated policy indeed!
Mar 16, 2005 - 7:56 pm 10. richard mcenroe:Barry Dauphin ó French workers actually struck this week, demanding the government find ways to increase worker productivity. The government workers then struck in support of the strikers.
This is not a joke.
Mar 16, 2005 - 8:15 pm 11. Curt:“You might wonder if democracy promotion means anything to them at all.”
Of course democracy promotion means nothing to them! That’s why the Bushies focused on the WMDs when they took their case international. They knew Europe didn’t give a rat’s behind about spreading democracy.
Mar 16, 2005 - 8:45 pm 12. KCTrio:I think there is another subtle move here that perhaps people may be missing. Wolfowitz is an American Jew, and a strong friend of Israel.
With all the Jew-hatred going on over in Euroland, and their active support of Arafish and his terroist progeny, perhaps this might cause those little Jew-bashing cockroaches to bite their tongues when they open their maws in the man’s presence.
Think about it. If you want to cure a business culture of black-hatred, put the top dog in the organization a highly-skilled man or woman of color. The effect is really startling (I’m referring to a real life experience here that I witnessed at an old employer of mine that had about 60,000 employees at the time I worked there).
Before this man (in my situation) was hired, you could here racist remarks hurled in open areas without a care in the world (early ’90s, no less). Then, once this gentleman was put in charge of the company, it sent all those small minded bigots back under the rocks from which they emerged. They were still bigots in the closet, but the overt stuff stopped in a real hurry. And without the power to throw around their bigotry in public, tolerance grew organically as a result. Better than affirmative action by a country mile.
Perhaps this might lie behind the man’s appointment, at least a small part. Aside from this, Wolfowitz is a real talented man, and quite capable for the job.
If I’m right about this, Bush is one shrewd son of a gun, and not one to be trifled with.
Mar 16, 2005 - 9:26 pm 13. Yehudit:I found this via Fred Kaplan at Slate (i.e. i usually don’t read Eric Alterman if I can help it):
“Hold onto your underpants, Jeff Jarvis: When I asked Wolfowitz who he read outside of official channels that he found particularly profitable, he reeled off the names of a bunch of Iraqi blogs. I asked him if he read Juan Cole. He made a munched up face like his sushi had gone bad. He said that yes, he had read him, but did not do so much, because of all theóI forget his exact words, but Iím thinking ìawful crapî ñthrough which he had to slog in order to get the information that Cole presented. I said I thought it would be useful since even if one disagrees, Cole certainly knows what heís talking about, and his view is closer to the rest of the worldís than are those published in the MSM. He made another bad sushi face.”
Hahahahahaha.
Read the whole thing – it’s fun watching Alterman try to fit Wolfowitz into Alterman’s narrow little antiwar conceptual framework.
Mar 16, 2005 - 9:27 pm 14. JenLArt:KCTrio is right;
The MSM is going light on the epithet of “neocon” for Wolfie-for once!-which is code for Jewish, but the Jerusalem Post is reporting that Israelis are very happy about this appointment and here’s why:
The EUroweenies and assorted Leftists won’t admit to their anti-Semitism and support for Islamist terrorism but will try to put Wolfowitz down by saying he’s not gonna do anything for the “environment.”
Fie!
Mar 16, 2005 - 9:44 pm 15. utron:IMHO, practically all of the appointments Bush has made in this second term have been big improvements over their predecessors–most of whom weren’t that bad. Wolfowitz seems to fit this pattern, and I’ll be interested to see how he shakes things up at the World Bank, which is overdue for a shaking.
Having said that, somebody please tell me: why is Norm Mineta still Secretary of Transportation? He should have been replaced before January 2002, and three years later he’s still there. Any rumors of his impending departure?
Mar 16, 2005 - 9:52 pm 16. Buddy Larsen:Richard, that was no earnest greenpeace woman, that was Earnest Borgnine. And those French strikers, striking for more productivity, uh-huh, you’re kidding. Can’t be, that’s like striking against ’striking’. Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz is so far ahead of his critics, he must feel like he’s talking on a six-month time delay.
Mar 16, 2005 - 10:37 pm 17. Katherine:“We were led to believe that the neo-conservatives were losing ground,” said Michael Cox, a professor of international relations at the London School of Economics. “But clearly the revolution is alive and well.”
Well, we can officially declare the Europeans insane.
Letís see: the president won reelection, got a mandate, got majority of his party in both houses of Congress, initiated a shakeup at CIA, exchanged Powell for Condi at State, kept Rumsfeld as SecDef, continues to get his key advisors at key positions and Europeans ìwere led to believe that the neo-conservatives were losing groundî?! In what alternative Universe do these poor deluded souls dwell? I mean, is he supposed to accommodate his opponents just when he got a strong hand? Why anybody would ever think that?
This is completely apart from the merits of Wolfowitz nomination (fine man that I think he is). One would think that at least nomination of Bolton to the UN would have been an unmistakable message of president’s intentions. Sorry, Euro boys and girls, this man walks the talk.
(Personal OT: Buddy, I posted my answer on ìourî thread.)
Mar 16, 2005 - 11:27 pm 18. David Thomson:Paul Wolfowitz is already receiving the approval of some top Democrats:
ìTODAY SENATOR JOE BIDEN, vice chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a leading Democratic foreign policy voice in that body, voiced strong support for Paul Wolfowitz as President George W. Bush’s choice to head the World Bank.î
ìAlthough some Democrats have criticized the selection, notably House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, others have praised the pick. “I know him to be an extraordinarily intelligent, creative thinker who has the potential to do a good job at the World Bank,” said Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, regarded as one of the Senate’s most partisan members.î
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/363ubjiw.asp
Itís obvious that Wolfowitz will be easily confirmed. The Bush juggernaut continues.
Mar 16, 2005 - 11:55 pm 19. Barry Dauphin:Richard Mcenroe
Maybe the French would be more productive if they’d stop watching all those Jerry Lewis movies.
Mar 17, 2005 - 4:49 am 20. jerry:KCtrio:
I am going to go a little against conventional wisdom here but I think even European anti-semitism is nothing more then [dangerous] posturing to appease Arab/Muslim tyrants. The Europenises don’t believe in anything strongly enough to be real old fashion anti-semites. Sure, they don’t mind when somebody else murders Jews but they don’t have it in them to do the dirty work themselves.
If the Democratization in the ME continues or at least leaves a the population with the self-understanding that their problems originate within the Arab world and not Israel the level of European anti-semitism will correspondingly subside.
Mar 17, 2005 - 5:26 am 21. Steve M:Wolfowitz head of the World Bank – shit, there really is a world Jewish conspiracy. How come I never get invited?
Seriously, this item from today’s Guardian Leader made me smile:
…Some worry that his strong emphasis on human rights may complicate relations with China.
A terrible thing.
Mar 17, 2005 - 6:06 am 22. Knucklehead:Richard,
I’ve learned to make the best of this unpleasant situation. Try this… keep your eyes tightly closed and surreptitiously dig in hands and feet to anchor yourself. Soon enough they’ll abandon their efforts to drag you to deeper water and break out the buckets and sponges to keep your hide wet. With eyes tightly closed the fact that your sponge bath is being delivered by the, ummm…, unshaven is largely immaterial.
Mar 17, 2005 - 6:19 am 23. Buddy Larsen:That’s the idea, Richard. Remember Queen Victoria’s advice for the wedding night, “Close your eyes and think of England”.
Mar 17, 2005 - 7:55 am 24. KCTrio:Jerry and Others:
I think I did a rather poor job at framing my point, and I suppose that was because I wanted to deliver it in haste. Now that I’ve had time to reflect, let me reframe this, and move my opinion above the level of Jew-bashing (or lack thereof) and on a higher plane of responsibility for Israel and the Palestinian conflict. Because here’s where Wolfowitz’ appointment makes more sense to me (in addition to his qualifications for the job; I’ll assume here that those are a given).
First of all, I want to deal with the broader issue of Europe abdicating it’s responsibility for protecting Israel, for more than 20 years (some would argue 40 years). I believe that the need for Israel was created by WWII. And I also believe that many European countries have blood on their hands. I’m speaking of more than just Germany. I’m also saying that the Ukraine, the French Collaborators, and many other Nazi occupied countries willfully participated in the slaughter of Jews. They loaded them on the trains, shipped them out of their own countries, just to save their own non-Jew citizens in Nazi deal-making. Save a non-Jew Frenchman from a slave colony, send a Jewish French citizen to the gas chamber. Jew-hatred has been rampant in Europe for centuries, and while I’d concede that any sort of bigotry is common to all people and Jew-bashing also existed in the US, it was really rife in Europe, both prior and during the Nazi slaughter.
So, these occupied European countries did not only begrudgingly participate in the slaughter, many played an active role in carrying out the slaughter.
So I conclude that Europe created the need for Israel. After the war, those Jews had to go somewhere. Would you want to hang around Vichy, if you were Jewish, in 1945? Or, for that matter, 1946?
So, a mass of people from Europe were sent to Israel. More arrived from Russia. Wave after wave went to their Promised Land.
Now, I think that Europe has completely dropped any culpability they may have once felt towards the need to protect Israel (since they were the ones who caused its need to exist). How so? Well, they issue press releases saying that Israel is a terrorist nation. They fund Arafat and the PLO, money that directly goes to terrorists (and is deprived from those who need it in Palestine).
Furthermore, and here to me is the most disgusting part of European arrogance, they call support for Israel support of a terrorist nation. They go even further by calling Israel a Nazi government. This from the mouths of the birthplace of Nazi ideals. And they call the US the source of all problems in the Middle East.
So this is not just an attempt to thwart Jew-bashing by Bush appointing Wolfowitz. It is a move to blunt this abdication of responsibility by the Europeans to support a solution to the problem in the current Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The US and Europe need to speak with one clear voice about a two-state solution, demand that all of the Arab world support Israel’s right to exist, and drop the right to return, the rulings by the International Court that calls the fence an act of terrorism, and to boldly call terrorism what it is and not call self-defense terrorism. If the Europeans did this, some of their criticism of Israel would ring truer to my ears and to many pro-Israel supporters around the world.
One needn’t go 100% pro-Israel to empathize with the Palestinians and at the same time support Israel. Calmer heads, if they prevailed, would support both sides’ complaints in a measured tone, and put blame where it truthfully lies. The Europeans are always blaming Israel and never Palestine, while the US does the other. I think the US does the other because Europe does the former.
Putting Wolfowitz in this job could silence some of this ferocious pro-Palestine support and equally intense anti-Israel condemnation coming from Europe.
That’s why I think the move is brilliant. The man is qualified, and he’s Jewish. This might cause Chirac and company to shut their mouths every time they feel the urge to bash Israel.
Mar 17, 2005 - 8:10 am 25. Canucklehead:The orange glow you see eminating from Europe is not the afterglow of the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine, but the afterglow of President Bush’s charm offensive in Europe. He has turned Europe into a gaggle of mildly obstructionist orange highway pylons that mark his path.
Europe’s push to integrate into a United Europe meant they needed to externalize some type of threat that Europeans could rally against (called the neo-luddite strategy). As President Bush & company understood this, they knew that the relationship between the US and Europe would be taking a nosedive in any event (neo-conservative strategy). Poor relations with Europe liberate US foreign policy (political capital can be spent productively).
The ball is laying in Europe’s court and they are watching it (neo-luddite strategy). Expect a European ball-boy (neo-conservative strategy) to pick it up and throw it back across the net. Game-Set-Match…
Mar 17, 2005 - 8:32 am 26. thibaud:Another point that seems to have escaped the Wolfophobes is that his “girlfriend”, as the Times of London calls her (Wolfowitz is divorced), is a Saudi feminist who works for the World Bank. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1529701_2,00.html
Mr Wolfowitzís girlfriend, Shaha Ali Riza, works at the World Bank. Ms Riza, who was born in Tunis and grew up in Saudi Arabia, is an ardent proponent of spreading democratic rights throughout the Arabic world. Her low-key presence in Mr Wolfowitzís life surprises critics, who assert that he masterminds a Zionist conspiracy from the Pentagon.
Mar 17, 2005 - 9:56 am 27. yama-arashi:I find it interesting how America’s MSM have eyes only for Europe. And Europe means France/Germany. One quarter of the World Bank’s funds come from the U.S. and Japan. Compared to Germany and France, if my memory serves me right, Japan spends more money than those two countries combined. Japan is most likely firmly in the Wolfowitz camp. So are many other countries who want to see aid dispersed effectively and aren’t part of the axis of kleptocracy. What the Wolfowitz nomination also does is further switch the center of power towards places like India and Japan and away from Old Europe and its world wide network of activists. Something that can’t happen soon enough.
Mar 17, 2005 - 5:16 pm 28. thibaud:What yama-arashi said. Remember, nearly all of Wolfowitz’s overseas experience has been in Southeast Asia. And it wasn’t a “stint”, as the MSM spinners would have it: Wolfowitz has spent the better part of a decade in SE Asia.
Mar 17, 2005 - 5:21 pm 29. yama-arashi:Because of his schooling Wolfowitz knows full well what France and Germany have been up to since, well, the French Revolution (I’m with Burke!), and since the Battle of Jena produced the spark that started the end of history crap (Hegel and his poor, poor student Marx), WW1, and 2 and the awful post-war intellectuals who swept French/German responsibility under the rug in the Eichmann is but a cog in a wheel or the blame America for everything–that mad, rabid dog- game, and he understands very well the importance of Kojeve in helping to create the EU, and France’s post-war “latin empire” strategy, and the relationshiop between the tyrannies of the world and Chirac’s Swiss banks, etc…..Because of his schooling he knows old Europe better than it knows itself. He also has spent his career outside of the normal channels someone like Wolfowitz would usually find himself in. See Thibaud. And cultivating relations with those outside the corriders of Old Europe. See Thibaud again. This is a long, long battle he has been fighting. Or so it seems to me. The World Bank is the perfect place for him. The MSM will hark about old Europe’s doubts, but they miss, as usual, the big picture. Old Europe, the world has just passed you by. The Middle East’s march to freedom will be an important part of Bush’s legacy, but not the most important part. In my humble opinion. The most important part will be the restructuring of places like the U.N. (Bolton) and the World Bank (Wolfowitz) so to represent the actual balance of power in the world, and to support democracy and (real) human rights. And the building of new bilateral relations with Japan and India, amongst other places, that form the lynchpin of a new global order.
Mar 17, 2005 - 6:12 pm 30. KCTrio:Yama-Arashi:
Are the capital letters OK?
Thank you for setting it straight (perhaps not here, but not often enough said) of the connection between Hegel and Marx.
If anyone has ever had to slog their way through Phenomenology of Spirit, they deserve a Master’s degree.
I had the privalege of having taken an independent study class with one of the world’s greatest minds, Alistair MacIntyre, the purpose of which was to read that digusting book.
Hegel may be considered the grandfather of German materialism, and perhaps one of the top five philosphers of all time, but the man is a monster.
Marx is not only a shadow of Hegel, the man should have been sued for plagiarism. If you simply add economic dialectic history to Hegelian dialectic of history, and weaken the logical armor of Hegel, you have Marx. The differnce being that Hegel was an intellectual giant, and Marx was a mere sappling by comparison.
For those that have had the great fortune of not having to read Hegel, let’s just put it this way: One numbered section (about a half page or full page) takes about 30 minutes to digest. No beauty, not subtly of words, no grace of style; just rigorous logic. And that’s if you’ve got the ability to follow his logic with good retention. I’m no genius, but I’m not too bad with the topic (I majored in abstract mathematics and philosphy in college), and the rigor of Hegel is pretty horrific. Just thinking about it makes me want to have a martini.
MacIntyre’s life is a beautiful example of the evolving mind. First off, just go to Amazon.com and look up his name. There you will find his legacy (and that’s just what’s in print). His triumph, After Virtue, is still being studied and probed for understanding by modern philosphers and political scientists.
MacIntyre started his intellectual life as a comitted Marxist (having been born a Catholic). He became a devout atheist, and was pretty much in line with his colleagues. Then, he dumped aside the trappings of that murderous, inhumane philoshpy and started grappling with God again. He came full circle, and became a lover of Democracy, the spirit of the individual, and a full-blown Catholic. Now he’s at Notre Dame, where his heart belongs. It’s been said (Reagan used to use this line) that followers of Marx are those that have been taught his ideas; rejectors of Marx are those that understand his ideas).
We need more men and women like MacIntyre. He’s a great man, thinker and teacher. I can personally vouch for the latter observation, because I spent many hours with him, one on one.
One more thing; if you go to the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, about every third entry is written by A. MacIntyre. Pretty astounding.
Mar 17, 2005 - 6:46 pm 31. Rick Ballard:Good Lord, Yama, I picked up Strauss’ ‘On Tyranny’ last night to reread his exchange with Kojeve (and the spitting on Hegel in this editions preface) and run into your comment this evening.
It will be very interesting to see Wolfowitz apply himself in his new position. I appreciate your insight regarding his background (thanks to Thibaud, too), I had forgotten about his extensive experience in the far east.
KCTrio – I don’t think I could read Phenomenology, even at gunpoint. Hegel to Heidigger to Hitler on one hand and Hegel to Marx on the other. He should be buried on top of Rousseau and under a public urinal.
Mar 17, 2005 - 7:17 pm 32. KCTrio:Mr. Ballard:
Couldn’t agree more. But then, if you follow the historical thread from Hegel to Marx, then you eventually get to Lenin, who would have gotten you to read Phenomenology of Spirit at gunpoint.
Kind of funny how your little figure of speach is so accurate. Deadly accurate.
Now that I’m thoroughly disgusted, having thought about Hegel again, and now Lenin, I think I’ll have that martini, and throw in a Xanax. Just thinking about these monsters makes me want to climb the walls.
Mar 17, 2005 - 7:37 pm 33. yama-arashi:Strauss?
And yes, drinks are a good idea.
Mar 17, 2005 - 8:05 pm 34. yama-arashi:(And no pissing on Rousseau, Hegel, or Kojeve! Read, and re-read. Enjoy.)
Mar 17, 2005 - 8:11 pm 35. KCTrio:yama-arashi:
I won’t piss on my copy of Phenomenology. It’s sort of a badge of honor. I even wrote a thesis on Hegel and Christianity (a subject about which has been studied pretty thororughly).
But re-read? No thanks. After the martini does its magic, there’s always my back yard at night (you know how we conservative males like to mark our territory). I won’t piss on Hegel. I’ll reserve Mao’s little red book and Mein Kampf for that exercise. But Hegel’s too important. A maniac, but important. One must read German materialists before one rejects them, you know.
I’ll stick with Santayana and William James. They’re just my bag, baby.
Mar 17, 2005 - 8:42 pm 36. KCTrio:yama-arashi:
Strauss, yes, of course he’d calm the nerves. I suppose one should listen to Wagner when reading Hegel, though. And Strauss to forget him.
But seeing as my moniker is a reference to the (Nat) King Cole Trio, I think I’ll listen to Sweet Lorraine, Orange Colored Sky, Embraceable You, Ooh Kickeroonie and Frim Fram Sauce.
The only song Nat did that would fit Hegel is Lush Life.
After being depressed by that sad song, I’ll listen to Nat’s smooth baritone. I’d probably make the playlist Stardust, A Blossom Fell, Lazy Hazy Crazy Days of Summer, Open up the Dog House (with Dean Martin) and The Ballad of Cat Ballou. If that doesn’t cheer me up, nothing will.
Mar 17, 2005 - 9:18 pm