New Yorker Opinion piece

[Peach]

http://newyorker.com/talk/content/?0...a_talk_editors

[pkt]

Wow! Thanks Peach for posting the link. What a powerful piece of condemnation which can be summed up in one word: "incompetence".

From Canada, as well as in the States as one can see in this New Yorker piece, one of the major causes is Bush's faith-based "solipsism" [M-W: Etymology: Latin solus alone + ipse self: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing.]
"Bush seldom entertains contrary opinion. He boasts that he listens to no outside advisers, and inside advisers who dare to express unwelcome views are met with anger or disdain. He lives and works within a self-created bubble of faith-based affirmation."

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
~ Bertrand Russell

I know, as a ref, i've been told, if ones make a wrong call which cannot be undone, make it consistently so the fencers can make allowances for the error.

But this is the Presidency of the US, the hyper-power of the world we're talking about. As i read some where, forgot where, "When Clinton lied, no one died..."

Add to this the jerrymandering of the absentee poll ballots and the voting machines, "the world's largest democracy" is very much in danger of not being one.

It's scary.

Now i have to go to bed with this thought. Happy Halloween.

PK

Ps: Who needs reality shows when we have politics. You can't get any more real than this. Why can't we have Trump telling Dubya, "You are fired!"

[jeff]

And the Economist, which can be as fairly labelled 'conservative' as the New Yorker labelled "liberal", agrees - calling Bush incompetent.

The New Yorker has better cartoons, though

[jBirch]

Who the hell uses the word "apotheosis" in a sentence of any meaning???

[Peach]

Different people from the ones who use "eponymous" (rock journalism) and "dialectic" (graduate students), two words that faintly annoy me whenever I run across them. On the other hand, "heteronormative patriarchalism," doesn't annoy me because it's so much fun to say. I gather you don't run into the word "apotheosis" often? Or is it that the contexts in which you run into it seem to contain no meaning?

I personally like the word "apotheosis," especially when if it refers slightingly to GWB's rather grandiose sense of sanctification in his role as President, but in the opening sentence it has the alternate (and ironic) meaning of: "model of excellence or perfection of a kind; one having no equal." (Hyperdictionary, http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/apotheosis)

Keep in mind that the New Yorker's audience isn't exactly mapped across the audience of, say, People or the National Enquirer. The writer can assume the reader knows the word.

[Peach]

Originally Posted by jeff

And the Economist, which can be as fairly labelled 'conservative' as the New Yorker labelled "liberal", agrees - calling Bush incompetent.

The New Yorker has better cartoons, though

The Economist? Good Lord.

I've been reading The New Yorker for its cartoons since I was 5, but for the last ten years or so I've been reading it for its liberal editorials and marvelous investigative journalism.

[pkt]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Who the hell uses the word "apotheosis" in a sentence of any meaning???

Publications like the New Yorker and the Economist.

PK

[pkt]

Originally Posted by Peach

...

Keep in mind that the New Yorker's audience isn't exactly mapped across the audience of, say, People or the National Enquirer

...or Fox news.

Originally Posted by Peach

...The writer can assume the reader knows the word.

...or knows how to use a dictionary to look it up.

Pls see below my new signature re insanity. Mr. Palmer is on the same track as the editors of the New Yorker: GWB is insane...

PK


PK

[Artisan]

The sad truth is that of the electorate who end up voting for Dubya on Tuesday, very few if any read the New Yorker - and even fewer still will have put any real effort into considering their vote, much less reading a 5000 word op-ed piece. They are the ones who fall prey to the fearmongering - who still believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

Even more disheartening is the alarming quantity of W supporters who seem to hang on the promise of the mythical image of " George W. is the kinda guy you can sit and have a beer with - look in his eyes and know he's honest and believes in what he says " Heh...isn't that what Dubya said about Putin - and look how well thats going - I digress....

There was a GOP TV spot - a Nascar driver - (I forget who) who delivered the above "look in the eyes line" along with his political philosophy: " I'm not a big issues guy"

Jeezum! - - This is the GOP's tactic for delivering the dumbassed redneck cracker vote? How about the "well- he's not supposed to the be Commander - in - Debate" excuse for his performance next to his opponent in the "debates". How did they turn mediocracy into an essential presidential qualification?

If anything - W should be defeated in this referrendum on the GOP on the very principle of their party treating the American public as if they are really as stupid as everyone else believes we are, instead of at least trying to raise the bar just one tiny notch and addressing real issues with real arguments - or at least try to.

Instead the GOP has turned Dubyas malapropisms and apparent complete lack of intellectual aptitude or curiosity into a selling point based on the merits of charisma over intelligence and faith over honesty, and in the process whitewashed the dem's as the academic elite, out of touch with the real world.

For me I'd feel more "secure" and "safe" from terrorists, economic threats and the devisive rancor this guy (the uniter?) has inflicted on this country if I knew that the Oval Office had someone in it with real some real horsepower under the brain hood. And its not about charisma and oratory - I'd vote for Steven Hawking over either of these guys....

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Peach

I've been reading The New Yorker for its cartoons since I was 5, but for the last ten years or so I've been reading it for its liberal editorials and marvelous investigative journalism.

Liberal???

You mean---it has a bias?

It isn't simply, indisputably, objectively correct?

I am aghast. No, no, no, anyone who doesn't like Bush is simply channeling Revealed Truth. There can be no doubt of it.

"Liberal", indeed!

[Inquartata]

Er---yes. All members of the right are, by definition, stupid or ignorant, because they disagree with the liberal perspective, which is so obviously the apotheosis of rectitude, sense and taste. Liberalism is the mainstream, so obviously anyone not participating in it is somehow less intellectually...

Oy.

[Schiavona]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Who the hell uses the word "apotheosis" in a sentence of any meaning???

In an episode of 'The Tick', Sewer Urchin used it thusly, "Down here I am the apotheosis of 'cool'."
I really miss that cartoon

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Liberal???

You mean---it has a bias?

It isn't simply, indisputably, objectively correct?

I am aghast. No, no, no, anyone who doesn't like Bush is simply channeling Revealed Truth. There can be no doubt of it.

"Liberal", indeed!

Well, that's simply backwards, Inq. It's the conservatives, and Bush in particular that portray themselves has having simple, unadorned black and white Truth, acting on the messages that God gave them, with unquenchable certitude. It's the liberals that go back and forth with different tones of gray. Haven't you actually been paying attention to what both sides actually say and do?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

Well, that's simply backwards, Inq. It's the conservatives, and Bush in particular

Did you read Arti's post?

[jeff]

Yes I did. His opinions aren't over the top; they're pretty accurate. I was referring to _your_ posts - which demean the idea that people can disagree strongly and point for point with Bush without being labelled as dogmatic. You can't have it both ways, Inq, attacking liberals as wishy-washy shades of gray flipfloppers and as dogmatic, Revealed Truth "my way is the only way" "dont bother me with the facts" fanatics. Certainly you know that the latter style of thought lives on the Republican side of the aisle, and is personified in the White House

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Er---yes. All members of the right are, by definition, stupid or ignorant, because they disagree with the liberal perspective, which is so obviously the apotheosis of rectitude, sense and taste. Liberalism is the mainstream, so obviously anyone not participating in it is somehow less intellectually...

Oy.

Ah! Light dawns on Marblehead! Inq has seen the light finally, after these long months of discussion and debate! Yea!

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

Ah! Light dawns on Marblehead! Inq has seen the light finally, after these long months of discussion and debate! Yea!

he




............................

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Peach

Different people from the ones who use "eponymous" (rock journalism) and "dialectic" (graduate students), two words that faintly annoy me whenever I run across them. On the other hand, "heteronormative patriarchalism," doesn't annoy me because it's so much fun to say. I gather you don't run into the word "apotheosis" often? Or is it that the contexts in which you run into it seem to contain no meaning?

I personally like the word "apotheosis," especially when if it refers slightingly to GWB's rather grandiose sense of sanctification in his role as President, but in the opening sentence it has the alternate (and ironic) meaning of: "model of excellence or perfection of a kind; one having no equal." (Hyperdictionary, http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/apotheosis)

Keep in mind that the New Yorker's audience isn't exactly mapped across the audience of, say, People or the National Enquirer. The writer can assume the reader knows the word.

Ah, a fellow neologist!

Actually, in this case, it just seems a superfluous use of verbiage. Deification seems to be a more commonly used to word to denote the same thing, as does glorification. Apotheosis is a specific technical term meaning to raise something to the level of God (or a God in the original case). Yes, you can read the double entendre in its use and can excuse its inappropriate use by analysing it more metaphorically, but that seems overly magnanimous, doesn't it? The context in which it's used doesn't seem in the least to be one where you could apply the term to refer to GWB and not, rather, to whomever is orchastrating the campaign. Even that humourous metaphorical interpretation (which I admit, I overlooked) seems a bit of a stretch unless you are really looking to be charitable in your attribution.

In the context of the New Yorker article, it is both incongruous with the rest of the piece and almost used incorrectly:

The ugliness has flowed mostly in one direction, reaching its apotheosis in the effort, undertaken by a supposedly independent group financed by friends of the incumbent, to portray the challenger—who in his mid-twenties was an exemplary combatant in both the Vietnam War and the movement to end that war—as a coward and a traitor.

To paraphrase, "...reaching its elevation to godhood in the effort...". So the effort at ugliness, epitomised by the Swift Boat Veterens, has been elevated to godhood, not Bush (though I guess you could refer to Bush as His Ugliness if you stretched the sentence enough to see what you wanted to). As much as an action, rather then a person, can be deified I guess it makes sense.

A much better word, and one keeping in tune with the word choice in the rest of the article, would probably be pinnacle or emodiment. To simplify the language, they could have chosen peak or height or even the phrase "elevation to godhood".

It just seems to me that the author had "apotheosis" as the word of the day and just had to figure out some way to wriggle it into a sentence rather then legitimately using it because it was the most appropriate word to use. It's like saying the "penultimate equine athlete" instead of the "second place horse" just so you can sound intellectually gifted. Instead, it makes the article sound presumptuous and idiotic, rather then insightful and intelligent. Just my two cents, at any rate. Never read The New Yorker before and thought the word was funny (humourous, for you more elightened types).

At any rate, I shall endeavour, in the future, to adumbrate more aptly the verbiage of The New Yorker in order to auger the abstruse, but indubitable, metaphor beneath before I intercalate my lower extremity of the vertebrate leg into my oral cavity.

*grin*

Hope this helps.

[Peach]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Ah, a fellow neologist!

(puzzled look ) I didn't coin any new words or phrases . . . though I've been known to do so in other situations.

I'm not particularly fond of using a big word where a small one would do, myself, but I try not to let the occasional use of a buzzword keep me from reading something--I'd never make it through the daily newspaper.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

Yes I did. His opinions aren't over the top; they're pretty accurate.

Uh....huh...

The sad truth is that of the electorate who end up voting for Dubya on Tuesday, very few if any read the New Yorker - and even fewer still will have put any real effort into considering their vote

Because, you know, conservatives are all stupid incurious dupes...