David Rivin Gets It Right

Since I usually mock and deride NRO....I believe that so doing gets souls out of Purgatory....I feel I should note when someone gets it exactly right over there.

Second, the reason Lee Casey and I have been critical of the U.S. Navy is that there are time-tested and cost-effective solutions to piracy problems, and the Navy has not employed them. It’s not a matter of escorting ships; it is a matter of conducting aggressive offensive operations against pirates at sea and on land, driven by robust rules of engagement. For example, we don’t have to wait till a pirate attack occurs; we can stop boats crewed by armed men — there is no legitimate reason for fisherman to brandish automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades. This, by the way, is how slave trade was suppressed: Ships that were equipped for carrying slaves were seized, and their crews punished, even if they had no slaves aboard. Captured pirates also need to be punished promptly and harshly. Ransom payments should be intercepted; pirate havens should be bombarded; pirate assets should be seized.

The goal isn’t to nation-build in Somalia; it is make piracy costly, difficult, and risky. All of this is doable.

This is true. Jeez, doesn't anyone read Hornblower novels anymore?

Oh, Magoo!....You've Done It Again!

Such a marvelous day in the history of our nation that it can only be slightly marred (or, if one's tastes are sufficiently perverse, enhanced) by the semi-literate pretensions and ravings of Jonah Goldberg. Here, in attempting to critique the literary merit of President Obama's inauguration speech, he plays to his strong suite and explains a basic point of human rights to those of us who are too dense to appreciate it:

But the line that grated on me most came from the bit about service and sacrifice. He said:

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

No, “they” didn’t. Slaves certainly didn’t endure the lash of the of the whip out of a sense of service and sacrifice for us. That is one of the reasons slavery is so evil; it isn't voluntary.

Gosh. Is that what's wrong with slavery? Who knew? I guess I'll have to let that 14 year old girl out of the trunk of my car now and get my money back for the duct tape. Gee. I knew there was something wrong about slavery but this whole volition thing is really wild. Thanks Jonah!

But, as most of us know, the slaves did endure the lash "for us" - certainly "for" those who purported to own them, but also for their children and for the hope of a better future, however long it might be postponed.

Not content with vicodin-addled bullshit like this, we also get to endure Jonah as would-be copy editor:

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.

Gathering clouds and raging storms? Really? How did that survive the first draft? Oh, and shouldn’t that be forebears not forbearers? A forbearer is someone who refrains from something.

Well, thanks to Marc Ambinder's yeomanlike work dissecting the speech, those who would care to know will recognize the "storms....clouds" imagery as allusive to a hymn by one-time slaver and later abolitionist John Newton. Perhaps that is why it survived the first draft.

I could go on (for instance, Goldberg's niggardly interpretation of the expression "forbearer" -which actually is a word, albeit an archaic one) but this time it really is too easy. Follow the link and read his whole post. I do understand that the myth of Goldberg's insight exists primarily in his own mind, but gibberish like this ought to lay that legend to rest for good.

Genitalia?....Tinny! Tinny!

I am not an Elizabeth Alexander fan. I do not think she is a particularly good poet, though far from an utter fraud such as Maya Angelou. If we must have an "inaugural poet", I would prefer that it be another.
Having said that, the criticism of her poem "The Venus Hottentot" from NRO's Candace de Russy is simply pathetic.

Alexander's best-known poem, "The Venus Hottentot," contains the following lines: "Her genitalia will float inside a labeled pickling jar," "Monsieur Cuvier investigates between my legs, poking, prodding," "Since my own genitals are public I have made other parts private."

I don't much care for the specific language of the poem, which strikes me as unmusical and ordinary....traits it shares with the rest of Alexander's ouvre. However, given the horrifying details of the story behind the so-called "Venus Hottentot", some form of morbid sexual expression seems nearly unavoidable. To do otherwise would be like writing a war poem without reference to death, which arguably has been done, but not often.
I fear that Professor de Russy give her game away with the title of her post, "X-Rated Yale Poet at Inaugural?". It is hard to imagine a poem less likely to evoke an erotic or prurient response in most audiences. Could it be that de Russy is unaware of the unusual aspects of the historical model's genitals? The encyclopedia is your friend, Ms. de Russy. I regretfully suspect, though, that the mere appearance of the word "genitalia" in conjunction with the words "poking, prodding" is enough to disqualify the poet.

Goldberg v Sullivan: the Reckoning

This time, it's personal.

As you may or may not know, Sullivan and I used to be friends. We sparred over various issues online and joined forces on others. And then we would occassionally have drinks and compare notes. I think your points are all valid, but they ignore the simple fact that Sullivan's tactics of debate have often been, and have become steadily more, dishonorable ("nearest weapon to hand" is how I think Mickey once described it with admirable concision). As a personal matter, I look at Andrew's behavior toward me with a straightforward mix of disappointment and pity. As a professional matter, I've moved from bewilderedness to complete indifference. Either way, I for one no longer believe it's worth wasting the effort trying to form alliances with the Party of Andrew. You suggest I'm supposed to overlook his shabbiness, dishonesty and nastiness (never mind his neck snapping inconsistencies) because this week he's complaining about socialized medicine? I say I'm not nearly so cheap a date.

Hey, that last line is a real zinger, huh? It sounds, dare I say, a tad catty. And those shoes with that belt!