I Almost Killed Peter Jennings!
From: David Brooks
To: Joe KleinPosted Monday, Jan. 28, 2002, at 1:35 PM ETWho are these people?
Note: The first entry was sent last night.
Joe,
I don't blame you for scoffing at the Bush 43 and TR comparison. I half scoff myself. But I've made an ass out of myself so often by underestimating Bush it's not even funny. I refer you to today's Washington Post piece on life inside the White House in the days just after 9/11. Obviously the sources for this long piece (part of that rarest of creatures—a newspaper series actually worth reading) are paid to make Bush look good. Nonetheless the evidence is persuasive for this key fact: That at every turn, Bush grasped the key issue at stake and laid it out for his staff in clear terms. The crucial players appear to have been Bush himself and Condoleezza Rice. Meanwhile Tom Daschle is shown protesting because using the word "war" after 9/11 might be a bit too strong.
It's time we all rethought what makes a beautiful mind. Historical knowledge, high IQ, and the ability to grasp sophisticated concepts may not be as important as we think. Most smart people would have handled this situation far worse than Bush.
By the way, did I mention that I almost killed Peter Jennings this morning? I was driving into work listening to Martin Gilbert's biography of Churchill. The French were just surrendering to the Nazis as I turned swiftly into the parking garage. There on the sidewalk, between me and the garage entrance, was the ABC anchor. I pulled up short and I think he glared at me.
If I'd hit him Reed Irvine would have named me Man of the Year, but I would have gone down in history as the Grade B pundit who crushed the superstar. Mortifying.
This will be a sleepless night for many readers as they anticipate our discussion of National Greatness Conservatism, which I at least am looking forward to.
Best,
David
I Almost Killed Peter Jennings!
From: David Brooks
To: Joe KleinPosted Monday, Jan. 28, 2002, at 1:35 PM ETWednesday Notes From the Fray Editor:
The main topic in the Fray is the State of the Union speech. REW-OEM explains here why he was tempted to join the 84% but ended up in the 16%, and asks "Why is it not possible to respect and applaud President Bush's positively spun and well transformed public demeanor, acknowledge his strength and steadfastness in difficult times, and yet still question the will and wisdom of his plans for our future?" More questions: Anita tries to answer Joe Klein's "how do you convince people that a certain selflessness is good for the soul…?" John-Paul Spiro read "bourgeois democratic nations…don't breed poisonous ideological groups" and wants to ask "What do you call Timothy McVeigh?" Why does Peter Lahey feel like a character from Invasion of the Body Snatchers? Click here to find out.
Reader Comments From The Fray:
What Brooks calls idealism could itself be called, and often has been, imperialism or the spread of global capitalism or an arrogant disrespect for the sovereignty of other nations. To define the "spreading" of any cultural force or view (democracy, capitalism, or hmmm say Christianity) by force as "idealistic" seems on the face of it absurdly ethnocentric and arrogant. One must, like Hegel, be willing to assert that one's culture represents the historical pinnacle and telos of human endeavor--in which case, every other country, including Great Britain (with their nasty socialist ways!) would have to be invaded and made to conform to the US Constitution in the name of American idealism. To suggest, as Brooks does, that bourgeois democracy represents the best that can be aspired to--well, that's a dim thought, made no brighter by being pasted with the shiny label of "idealism."
--J
(To find or answer this post, click here .)
Monday Notes From The Fray Editor:
Always check your quotations or the Fray will get you. All together now: "I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness." (We'll miss out the "starving hysterical naked" bit.) Other phrases that caught readers attention were "by any means necessary" (in regard to questioning suspects) and "congenital DNA" (What other kind is there, asked one poster.) Urquhart says Klein "gets points for use of the word 'dudgeon,' which I've never seen outside of a Wodehouse novel." And there are plenty of discussions on Enron and the economy.
Reader Comments From The Fray:
Klein thinks we should be "interrogating the hell out of them by any means necessary." Does this include torture? I'd like to hear his opinion. And his reference to the nine families who lost loved ones is weak. Yes, we should remember the damage done by the terrorists. But that doesn't mean that every policy argument needs to have the approval of the relatives of the victims.
--Leonard
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
It seems to me the public's indifference about the extent of Enron's dealings with the Bush administration says more about the public than it does about our need to know. I doubt Cheney would risk the potential political damage of a court dispute if he didn't think the contents of his meeting notes were potentially more explosive. If Cheney's right, and this is just Dem hype, then prove us wrong and release the documents. Enron shareholders got screwed, in part, by a lack of corporate transparency. Cheney's claim that disclosing these documents could impair future leaders' ability to consult with corporation without fear of public scrutiny is, at best, disingenuous, at worst, more of the same opaqueness that got us in this mess.
--John Rogers
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
SPONSORED CONTENT
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
The Hilarious Results of Slate's "Write Like Sarah Palin" Contest
Does Your iPhone Really Need a Titanium Case?
Vice Presidents Say the Darnedest Things
The Golden Scissors Awards Are the Oscars of Black Hair
Slate's Complete Coverage of the Tiger Woods Scandal
The Awesome Spectacle of Glenn Beck's Live Performance of The Christmas Sweater
Wednesday Notes From the Fray Editor:
The main topic in the Fray is the State of the Union speech. REW-OEM explains here why he was tempted to join the 84% but ended up in the 16%, and asks "Why is it not possible to respect and applaud President Bush's positively spun and well transformed public demeanor, acknowledge his strength and steadfastness in difficult times, and yet still question the will and wisdom of his plans for our future?" More questions: Anita tries to answer Joe Klein's "how do you convince people that a certain selflessness is good for the soul…?" John-Paul Spiro read "bourgeois democratic nations…don't breed poisonous ideological groups" and wants to ask "What do you call Timothy McVeigh?" Why does Peter Lahey feel like a character from Invasion of the Body Snatchers? Click here to find out.
Reader Comments From The Fray:
What Brooks calls idealism could itself be called, and often has been, imperialism or the spread of global capitalism or an arrogant disrespect for the sovereignty of other nations. To define the "spreading" of any cultural force or view (democracy, capitalism, or hmmm say Christianity) by force as "idealistic" seems on the face of it absurdly ethnocentric and arrogant. One must, like Hegel, be willing to assert that one's culture represents the historical pinnacle and telos of human endeavor--in which case, every other country, including Great Britain (with their nasty socialist ways!) would have to be invaded and made to conform to the US Constitution in the name of American idealism. To suggest, as Brooks does, that bourgeois democracy represents the best that can be aspired to--well, that's a dim thought, made no brighter by being pasted with the shiny label of "idealism."
--J
(To find or answer this post, click here .)
Monday Notes From The Fray Editor:
Always check your quotations or the Fray will get you. All together now: "I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness." (We'll miss out the "starving hysterical naked" bit.) Other phrases that caught readers attention were "by any means necessary" (in regard to questioning suspects) and "congenital DNA" (What other kind is there, asked one poster.) Urquhart says Klein "gets points for use of the word 'dudgeon,' which I've never seen outside of a Wodehouse novel." And there are plenty of discussions on Enron and the economy.
Reader Comments From The Fray:
Klein thinks we should be "interrogating the hell out of them by any means necessary." Does this include torture? I'd like to hear his opinion. And his reference to the nine families who lost loved ones is weak. Yes, we should remember the damage done by the terrorists. But that doesn't mean that every policy argument needs to have the approval of the relatives of the victims.
--Leonard
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
It seems to me the public's indifference about the extent of Enron's dealings with the Bush administration says more about the public than it does about our need to know. I doubt Cheney would risk the potential political damage of a court dispute if he didn't think the contents of his meeting notes were potentially more explosive. If Cheney's right, and this is just Dem hype, then prove us wrong and release the documents. Enron shareholders got screwed, in part, by a lack of corporate transparency. Cheney's claim that disclosing these documents could impair future leaders' ability to consult with corporation without fear of public scrutiny is, at best, disingenuous, at worst, more of the same opaqueness that got us in this mess.
--John Rogers
(To find or answer this post, click here.)