--And an unfortunate typo on a political blog made my
day! In attempting to boost Gingrich and Santorum, the
male poster transposed two letters in united, unintentionally
undercutting his argument but describing the opposition
party of the moment. (Moderate republicans, my critiques
do not include you.)
I MAY tear all my remaining hair out, and rend my garments
as well for good measure--for heaven sakes! Why are so many
commenters (NOT you who visit here, thankfully!) such poor
spellers, devoid of knowledge, not possessing considered
judgement? NEITHER the extreme right NOR the extreme left
has any practicable programs to offer the general electorate,
period. I enjoy/support moderates in both parties, they seem
to be the moral workhorses of the nation, what we all actually
NEED.
Also at Politico, commenters praising Gingrich raised my ire;
firing back, I reminded them that not every product of Georgia
Tech is brilliant; he's brilliant because certain people say so,
much like those who are famous because they are famous. (Newt
Gingrich, the Paris Hilton of politics?) Neither sort has many
other solid redeeming talents and qualities. Mr. Gingrich, when
castigated as grandiose, failed to realize the pejorative meaning
of the word, instead wrapped himself in the U.S. flag, claiming
America is grandiose, etc. (I had to laugh.)
Now Newt produced another unfortunate pronouncement:
This election is the most important since 1860?
Unaware racism, anybody?
Meanwhile, gotta love that typo...."untied" republicans giving
Mr. Obama a second term, and the media most colorful commentary.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The most disgusting drivel I've seen from Gingrich would have to be his "historical novels," where he re-envisions history. I admit my poor mother, knowing my love of Civil War history bought me "Gettysburg," his historical revision novel of the battle. I have never, ever, read more senseless drivel in my life, and I will never call him a historian because of that book. Anyone can write a "revised" history of an event. Because it is fiction! You are putting thoughts into a historical figure's head, a real person's head, that were not there, that could not have been there. What has happened, happened, and could not happen any other way. "What-if" history is what it is, and it is the cocaine of historical study. And Gingrich is one of its biggest dealers.
ReplyDeleteRight as rain as usual, Nate! Even though I was born in NYC, I actually grew up in Texas, so I'll always keep a keen interest in the South, even if I've spent most of my life in the Chicagoland area.
DeleteI love history, almost got a degree as a history major. I like historical novels too, but from what you say here, I wouldn't waste my time on any "Newtonian" fantasies. Thanks for checking in and also for the tip.
Best Wishes, and I'll check out your
blog today.
Yes, again I hold nothing against my mother for it, all she saw was “oh new Gettysburg book on the new book rack, Nate would like this!” (the event being several years ago now). At lack of any better word for what I think of Gingrich and his "historian" credentials, the only word I can summon is "ugh." Anyone! And I mean ANYONE (I use capitals because obviously I can't use italics for emphasis) can go out and write a "revised," "what if" history of any event. It takes no intellect; it takes no true understanding of the event, because you're throwing the events out the window! Sorry, getting my "dander up" so to speak. I'm a historical purist, borderline biological determinist (I recall your other post on that but could just never find the right words to explain why.)
DeleteWhile I do not totally believe in the theory, there are elements, particularly in historical studies, I think bear some thought. Consider Gettysburg. With the ever popular tool of hindsight, we've been able to go "oh Lee could have done this, he could have done that." Of course he COULD have, but he never WOULD have. Because you're relying on information that the historical figure did NOT have. You are therefore injecting information that did not exist into the head of a historical figure, already you are lost academically by injecting fantasy and fabrication into the element. That is why I see perhaps something in some elements of biological determinism. You are asking a historical figure to have made a different decision than he or she actually did, based on information he or she didn’t have, or interpreting information in a way he or she didn’t, and putting thoughts in his or her head that just weren’t there. It’s a fantasy, a folly, of the highest order to ever be taken seriously.
But I can see why Gingrich would like revising history, it'd let him edit out all his past. It'd let them rewrite anything that didn't support their causes...
And no need there's nothing really that new on it, I've had too much else going on in life. Hopefully this summer I can start putting pen to paper more so to speak...
Like what you wrote above. The "biological determinism" (or whatever the proper term actually is) Cletis, his wife and I worry about is different, I think, that what you've referred to here.
DeleteWe're worried that certain folk would forever be deemed lost causes, that alcoholics and others cannot change, that therefore there is no redemption and no improvement possible.
I think humans are extremely (as you know) complicated, that genetics plays a huge role, ditto the environment, which includes other humans, plus where they live, what they eat, and any and all toxins riding by on the road. I believe in human willpower, properly directed; it has already achieved great things. But none of this is simple, easy, or uncontroversial.
I hope your life lets you return to your creativity, it's good for your readers and for you. Thanks for your time, as always, best of luck!
I'm not praising the faux "centrists" justly descried on other blogs. My "moderates" are people who seem genuinely willing to work for the greater good, less in love with their own
ReplyDelete"distinguished" careers.