Quote For the Day: WSJ Ed. Board Edition

Mr. Obama sought more tax-hike cover under his deficit commission, seeming to embrace its proposal to limit tax deductions and other loopholes. But the commission wanted to do so in order to lower rates for a more efficient and competitive code with a broader base. Mr. Obama wants to pocket the tax increase and devote the revenues to deficit reduction and therefore more spending.

The Presidential Divider
Unsigned Wall Street Journal
Editorial” Aptil 14, 2011

The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines “sophistry” as “subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation.” Under that definition, the passage that we have excerpted from a recent Wall Street Journal editorial on President Barack Obama’s recent speech on deficit reduction hardly qualifies as sophistry. The problem is the word “subtly.” Because really, there’s nothing “subtly deceptive” about a paragraph that argues that directing government revenues to paying down the national debt is just another example of reckless and uncontrolled Democratic spending.

The word “disingenuous,” comes closer to the mark. According to The Free Dictionary, something is disingenous when it is “not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating.” There’s no doubt that the Wall Street Journal’s editorial is “insincere” and it doesn’t strike us as particularly “straightforward.” However, it’s the word “calculating” that bothers us in the present context. Because, you see, “calculating” implies “calculation,” which in turn implies that some sort of rational process went into crafting this argument. And that implication, we feel, gives the quoted passage waaaaay too much credit. The passage reminds us less the “calculation” involved in a teenager’s futile attempt to convince his parents that there’s a perfectly innocent explanation for the dime bag of marihuana they found between his mattresses than it does the “who gives a shit” attitude of the bored future dropout’s “christmas treeing” his SAT so he can get out of the examination room as quickly as possible. While the former teen’s explanation may prove unconvincing, the latter isn’t even trying… much like the quoted passage. 

So after much careful thought and consideration, we have come to the conclusion that no single word fully conveys the thoughts, reactions and emotions that a reading of the quoted passage arouses in us. Instead,  a whole phrase at least is required to describe the passage, and the phrase that best describes it is as follows. The quoted passage and the argument it sets forth are: “inconceivably, irredemably, impossibly, jaw droppingly idiotic.”

(Hat Tip: Andrew Sullivan)


Much better drop shadow. Thank you.

ADD: That font is listed in the Geneva Convention as a war crime, however.

I think the other side is actually starting to lose on this. From what I’ve had time to read, there’s a nascent mainstream awareness of the way that the top 2% has been stealing all these years, and who exactly has been allowing them to do it. Like in the passage above, the right is becoming more and more desperate, shrill, and that is making the gaps in their logic show even to the hoi polloi.

Is it possible that the switch in the house in 2010 was more a function of panic and frustration, and less about American desire to be led by mouth-breathing charlatans? I’m sensing a lot of buyer’s remorse….

@Tommmcatt is with Karin Marie on This One:

Correct – but much like wild animals, proto-fascists like the modern GOP are most dangerous when cornered.

@Tommmcatt is with Karin Marie on This One:
You’re probably right.

I think it all changed because of what happened in Wisconsin.

@Tommmcatt is with Karin Marie on This One: The way GOP congresscritters have been whining about Barry’s speech, there’s certainly a smell of fear in the air. And while it’s too complex to explain, there was a delightful Demrat budget maneuver in the House today — forcing a vote on an extreme wingnut proposal — that had Repugs running for cover.

It really was a fine speech, on its own terms. And if Demrats keep sounding the theme, and back up their words with actions, it’ll be seen as a turning point. But I really need to see some results before I start applauding it.

FSM knows that newspapers have cornered the market on sound strategic business and financial planning. Back to $ucking Koch for ca$h, Unsigned WSJ Editors. Ha ha.

@Tommmcatt: Not to be a Debbie Downer, but the sheeples will never wake up. Reminds me of that passage from 1984 in which Winston muses that if the great unwashed masses ever chose to, they could shake off the Party like a dog shakes off fleas, but instead they spend all of their time quarrelling over booze, women and lottery tickets.

In our society–already overflowing with ignorant, right-wing, neo-fascist submorons–it’ll be booze, fried foods and “reality” TV, accompanied by hate-crazed, shrieking calls to exterminate all of the non-cream cheese colored people, the hummuhssssekshals and the gawt-dam yewyunized Kom-yewnists.

We’re only about two seasons away from The Running Man as it is.

Add a Comment
Please log in to post a comment