[spacefreak]

This guy reports...

The speeches in Madison Square Garden affirmed the great truths now routinely preached from the pulpits of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal--government the problem, not the solution; the social contract a dead letter; the free market the answer to every maiden's prayer--and while listening to the hollow rattle of the rhetorical brass and tin, I remembered the question that [Richard] Hofstadter didn't stay to answer. How did a set of ideas both archaic and bizarre make its way into the center ring of the American political circus?

Unbelievable.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
This guy reports... Unbelievable.

I dunno, politics is pretty predictable -- on both sides. I'm curious to see how well this holds up after the convention.

Let's face it, it's not like this kind of commentary is really special. It's just basically a political version of a horoscope. General enough to make sense.

[Millennium]

"Dewey Defeats Truman" all over again?

But seriously; this is the problem I see with politics today. The bickering between the parties is intensifying; no longer is it mere disagreement; it is progressing to actual hate. Right now the liberals seem to be the more virulent of the pack, but that's somewhat to be expected since they're not in power; if the circumstances were reversed it would be the conservatives taking up arms (and indeed, in less polarized times this is exactly what happened). This kind of crap -hurling invective for speeches which haven't been delivered and probably not even finished yet, based entirely on stereotype and caricature- is only doing more harm than good.

Mind you, I do think the social contract is every bit as much of a religion as Christianity, and every bit as critical to be separated from the State, but maybe that's just me.

[Saad]

Does anyone have a link to the Harper's article?

[Zimphire]

I wonder what prong this is.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
This guy reports... Unbelievable.

apparently, both you and the guy who posted that link failed to see this before what you quoted:

[quote]where Lapham pretends to have heard the speeches at the Republican National Convention that does not open until a week from today.[/.quote]

This is simply a writing conceit (not conceit like someone who thinks highly of themselves, but a rhetorical technique) of pretending to cover future events as if they were past events to make a point.

Ironically, the article apparently referred to conservatives as stupid and close minded...and both you and the poster who brought it up failed to understand what he was doing, EVEN THOUGH THE POSTER STATED IT EARLIER.



I should edit and add, though, that I do not mean I APPROVE of that conceit in this instance, as it surely leads to this very sort of misunderstanding. Further, I see no point in projecting future greivances of the RNC, time will tell soon enough. sufficient to the day are the evils thereof.

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I wonder what prong this is.

The Land of Make Believe Prong

[Timo]

I read the piece in Harper's. Standard Lapham stuff, but particularly high octane this month.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
apparently, both you and the guy who posted that link failed to see this before what you quoted:

The original poster wrote that, let alone 'failed to see it'.

This is simply a writing conceit (not conceit like someone who thinks highly of themselves, but a rhetorical technique) of pretending to cover future events as if they were past events to make a point.

Ironically, the article apparently referred to conservatives as stupid and close minded...and both you and the poster who brought it up failed to understand what he was doing, EVEN THOUGH THE POSTER STATED IT EARLIER.

That makes no sense- how could the poster fail to understand what he stated?

You're drawing conclusions based on what the original poster already pointed out, and acting like you're the only one pointing them out.

The real issue is whether or not the writer (Lapham) made it abundantly clear in the actual article this is what he was doing, (none of us would know unless we've read the actual article in complete context). The poster (who apparently has read the article) seems to be of the opinion that this wasn’t the case, and therefore perhaps the author’s projection could be easily (even intentionally) misinterpreted.

The larger point anyway that the poster is making, is the exercise of predicting the future in this way is pretty goofy and self-serving.

[tie]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
The original poster wrote that, let alone 'failed to see it'.
...
The larger point anyway that the poster is making, is the exercise of predicting the future in this way is pretty goofy and self-serving.

That's not clear to me. If the original poster noticed this, then what is the issue here? You're saying spacefreak doesn't like the writing style? Why didn't he just say so -- and is it really "unbelievable"? Well anyway, if spacefreak doesn't like it, then following Dr.HermanG.'s contrarian-principled stance on stem cell research, I must like it.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by tie:
That's not clear to me. If the original poster noticed this, then what is the issue here?

The 'original poster' is the person who wrote the blog entry, and who also wrote what Lerkfish quoted. In other words, there really isn't an issue, but Lerkfish certainly tried to create one. I guess he was writing his own 'conceit’ by making up things that hadn't happened in this thread!'

You're saying spacefreak doesn't like the writing style?
Why didn't he just say so -- and is it really "unbelievable"?

Why are you asking me? Ask spacefreak.

Either that, or just make up a huge projected paragraph of nonsense that's your own 'conceited' (traditional definition) interpretation of one word he posted!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
The 'original poster' is the person who wrote the blog entry, and who also wrote what Lerkfish quoted. In other words, there really isn't an issue, but Lerkfish certainly tried to create one. I guess he was writing his own 'conceit’ by making up things that hadn't happened in this thread!'


Why are you asking me? Ask spacefreak.

Either that, or just make up a huge projected paragraph of nonsense that's your own 'conceited' (traditional definition) interpretation of one word he posted!

my interpretation (which may have been incorrect on reflection) was that both spacefreak and the blogger were appalled at the article because it falsely attempted to write about an event in the future and pass it off as fact. I thought the "unbelievable" comment (certainly my interpretation of the blogger's comments) were that this was journalistic fraud, or some kind of underhanded misinformation campaign. I was attempting to correct that misconception.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
This guy reports... Unbelievable.

Interesting how you previously went on tangents about how blogs aren't articles....

now this one is an 'article'?



Looks like some 15 year old's blog.

Pick up a newspaper.

[spacefreak]

"The speeches in Madison Square Garden affirmed the great truths now routinely preached from the pulpits of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal..."

My "unelievable" was in regards to the fact that the article author is analyzing speeches in MSG that haven't happened yet.

[Dakar]

I still say its incredibly generic.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
"The speeches in Madison Square Garden affirmed the great truths now routinely preached from the pulpits of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal..."

My "unelievable" was in regards to the fact that the article author is analyzing speeches in MSG that haven't happened yet.

Well, there are people who have been privilaged to the speaches ahead of time (they are all written already), and months ago the ideas were outlined and reviewed. Dems do it too.

Speach writing started a few months ago

Normally that's NDA though.

IIRC someone did this to one of Clintons speaches during his first run as well.

[Saad]

Does anyone have a link to the Harper's article? There is none at the blog. If it is not availbale on the Harper's site (I haven't been able to find it), it probab;y was not printed. Harper's posts all of its content online a few days after the magazine is printed.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Saad:
Does anyone have a link to the Harper's article? There is none at the blog. If it is not availbale on the Harper's site (I haven't been able to find it), it probab;y was not printed. Harper's posts all of its content online a few days after the magazine is printed.

I didn't see it either.

Might be retracted.

[Timo]

Originally posted by Saad:
Does anyone have a link to the Harper's article? There is none at the blog. If it is not availbale on the Harper's site (I haven't been able to find it), it probab;y was not printed. Harper's posts all of its content online a few days after the magazine is printed.

I didn't see it either.

Might be retracted.

I...read...it...in...print. See for yourself at any newstand.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
"The speeches in Madison Square Garden affirmed the great truths now routinely preached from the pulpits of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal..."

My "unelievable" was in regards to the fact that the article author is analyzing speeches in MSG that haven't happened yet.

He has a crystal ball.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Interesting how you previously went on tangents about how blogs aren't articles....

now this one is an 'article'?

I stated "this guy reports", meaning one guy. I didn't claim that his site or commentary was the 'article'. It just so happened that he read the just-released issue and quoted the article passage.

The quote is from the actual article, not the dude's blog. Go to a newstand and pick it up.

[Saad]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...=Google+Search

I think you're right macvillage, I've found no such article, only references to this guy's blog.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Saad:
I think you're right macvillage, I've found no such article, only references to this guy's blog.

You're both absolutely wrong. Heck, even Timo mentioned above that he indeed read it in print.

Harper's hasn't yet made it's September 2004 issue available online. However, here's a letter to the editor on Harper's site regarding the time-traveling article.

I was most impressed to read of Lewis Lapham's ability to travel in time in "Tentacles of Rage" [Essay, September]. As far as I can tell, on the day I received my copy of Harper's Magazine, the Republican convention had yet to take place, and living in New York, I think I would have noticed. Admittedly, the pablum will be predictable (barring some unforeseen event), but it seems awfully sloppy of Lapham to discuss feelings he had while watching something he has yet to watch, simply in order to put some additional feathers on one of his rhetorical barbs. What is most appalling is that he chose an actual piece of journalism, rather than his accustomed punditry, for this rather silly fillip. This doesn't exactly give me faith in his understanding of what it is reporters actually do.

On the other hand, if he has in fact traveled in time, I would appreciate it if he could let all of us subscribers know the outcome of the forthcoming election.

Matthew Ostrowski
Brooklyn

Lewis Lapham responds:

As Mr. Ostrowski properly notes, the rhetorical invention was silly. The mistake, however, is a serious one, and if I'd had my wits about me as an editor, I wouldn't have let the author mix up his tenses in manuscript or allowed him in page proof to lapse into poetic license. Both of us regret the injury done to the magazine and apologize, wholeheartedly, to its readers.

[voodoo]

From the blog:

Perhaps the most revealing part of the article is the paragraph where Lapham pretends to have heard the speeches at the Republican National Convention that does not open until a week from today. Referring to "the platform on which [George W. Bush] was trundled into New York City this August with Arnold Schwarzenegger, the heavy law enforcement, and the paper elephants," Lapham writes:
[hypothetical description cut]

True, the issue is dated September, but I got my copy in early August, and Lapham must have written those words in July. Didn't it occur to him that his readers might notice he was claiming to have witnessed an event that had not occurred when the magazine went to press? Evidently, Republicans are not the only ones Lapham thinks are stupid.

my emphasis added.

The blogger clearly thinks this Lapham writer is trying to fool the readers of the magazine by making up a description of the RNC. He indicates that Lapham must think the Democrats are stupid as well if they are going to buy that he has seen the RNC when the magazine issue is printed and delivered in early August.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
"As Mr. Ostrowski properly notes, the rhetorical invention was silly. The mistake, however, is a serious one, and if I'd had my wits about me as an editor, I wouldn't have let the author mix up his tenses in manuscript or allowed him in page proof to lapse into poetic license. Both of us regret the injury done to the magazine and apologize, wholeheartedly, to its readers."

And there we have it.