Posted on 12/02/2001 11:10:06 AM PST by a_Turk
LOL ... yeah right .... guess those world wars were just exercises in military masturbation for Europe.
Hold on, maybe I should clarify. I don't think I'd go so far as to say that the sentences Jonah Goldberg wrote in an opinion piece are "in unison". I don't know of any piece of writing which would qualify for that. I don't know why you'd want it, either. Are you really unable to comprehend a piece of writing which mentions more than one country or political situation?
Would it be fair to say that a writer would state his theme in the opening paragraph? He would then recap this theme in the closing, making reference to some of his main points which support his theme/point, agreed?
Sure, I agree, if we are in third grade. What the heck is the matter with you? This is an opinion piece in an online political journal, not a third-grader's Five Paragraph Essay writing assignment, with each paragraph required to begin with a Topic Sentence and follow up with Three Supporting Examples.
I would say, judging from the words he's written (not my own "impression" of the theme) that the article is to be mainly about extradition in light of Americas' death penalty laws, dealing specifically with Spains' refusal to extradite terrorists.
And, of course, you were wrong in that judgment, weren't you? You assumed that whatever-sentence-began-the-piece simply had to contain the thesis of the piece, and this was wrong. (Of you.)
I don't know why you expected the piece to contain its thesis in the opening sentence, in the first place. Do you read opinion pieces often? They very rarely are that simple.
I can see how you might have materialized your proposed theme from the body of the article.
Well, good! Now we are getting somewhere. Where did you think I would form my opinion of the theme of the piece, if not from the body of the article? Did you think I would do something so silly as to assume that the thesis of the piece was contained in its opening sentence? Because, I didn't. Unlike you, I read the piece, understood it, and based on that comprehension I formed an opinion as to its thesis. That's the way you are supposed to read a piece like this. Jonah is not a grammar school student and you are not his teacher trying to force him to conform to the Five Paragraph Essay format. So, stop acting like it.
The sum of the fractured parts
You still haven't explained what is so "fractured" about the piece. Goldberg wishes to comment on European intellectual elite opinion and why it ought not be listened to. He gives several examples of where this opinion is undemocratic, self-serving, hypocritical, cowardly, etc. Then at the end he says this opinion ought not be listened to.
And you call it "fractured". Please tell me why. For starters, do something you haven't done so far: give me one example of something Goldberg wrote which doesn't support the main idea that European intellectual elites are undemocratic and/or self-loathing (and thus, ought not be listened to). Then I will understand why you think it is a "fractured" piece. Thanks.
Alrighty. No European nation has a right to lecture the USA about rights and policy. They should all just shut the hell up i guess.
Pretty much, yeah.
Doesn't tie in, but it's a good point and should make him a lot of friends
What do you mean, "Doesn't tie in"? Doesn't tie in with what? With all the stuff he wrote previously - the stuff he wrote about European opinion makers being antidemocratic, self-loathing, etc? Are you that dense?
In this piece, sir, we find Goldberg criticizing European intellectual elite opinion. Then at the end he says they shouldn't be listened to (don't have the "right to lecture us"). And you chime in and say that "Doesn't tie in".
That's just plain nuts. It's his freakin' point, for crying out loud.
Then he just takes a couple of shots at Spain. No tie in to nothin', including your personal take on the theme.
His concluding parting shots at Spain are what are referred to, in the vernacular, as "jokes". Humans tend to derive what is called "humor" from such so-called "jokes", which is amusing for them and can help make the piece and its conclusion more enjoyable. You might want to re-read the piece with this new information in mind.
But seriously, it is truly bizarre that you seemingly can't read, understand, comprehend, or enjoy a piece of writing unless every single sentence somehow "ties in", in lockstep, with the first sentence of the piece. Very few pieces of writing are actually like that, and the ones that are, I daresay, are pieces of crap. Like the writing of third-graders. Is that what you want? Is that the level you read at?
I said it before and i'll say it again, it's a bunch of crap.
I know you said it before and, I fear, you'll say it again, but you still haven't given us ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of something he wrote which is such "crap". Your main criticism seems to be that it doesn't conform to elementary school essay format, which I will grant, for what it's worth.
What's the point? Just to bad mouth all of Europe i guess.
Actually, he makes it explicitly clear that his point is NOT to "bad mouth all of Europe". The guy practically bends over backwards to say this. For example:
the Europeans can be jerks. Okay, hold on. Let me make clear what I mean by that. I am not using the term as a geographic or ethnic adjective. I'm using it to describe a broad coalition of self-hating intellectuals and effete bureaucrats who have either abandoned their national identities out of embarrassment (as in Germany) or are using a new "European" identity as a Trojan Horse for their own cultural ambitions (i.e., the French and Belgians).
And, just so we know who he's not talking about:
I am not talking about, for example, the millions of Italians who celebrated "USA Day" in celebration of and solidarity with Americans in the wake of September 11. I am not referring to the average Joe, Giuseppi, or Jacques who doesn't care much for left-wing politics or grand new orders.
And, just in case we're still confused:
The problem with the Europeans - again, I mean the diploweenies and academic Huns -
So Goldberg makes it clear that he is Not Referring to All of Europe, he is referring specifically to what he amusingly refers to (oh no, there's more of that "humor" stuff!) as "diploweenies and academic Huns". Unless this describes each and every European, then (does it?), obviously Goldberg is not intending to bad mouth All Of Europe.
But, as if this weren't enough, you come along all hot 'n bothered and scared and sensitive that Goldberg "Just [wanted] to bad mouth all of Europe i guess." What does he have to do? How many times did he have to hedge and clarify for your taste? (Are you European - is that why you're all sensitive about this issue? Maybe you need a thicker skin.)
And to answer your question, yes i do object. If a democratic country passes a law, then it's done in a democratic manner. Are we to believe that every law which is passed by means other than a public referendum is undemocratic?
Well, yes and no. No, of course one wouldn't say that a country is "undemocratic" just because it doesn't decide everything by referenda. But the less things you do decide by referenda, the less democratic you are; the more insulated your lawmakers are from public opinion, the less democratic you are. That, and not the semantic point of whether such-and-such country Is Democratic, was Goldberg's point:
As the decidedly liberal Joshua Marshall pointed out in The New Republic a while back, European elites imposed the death penalty ban on an unwilling, unenthusiastic public."There is barely a country in Europe," writes Marshall, "where the death penalty was abolished in response to public opinion rather than in spite of it."
In other words, Goldberg is using the term "democratic" in the (loose) sense of, An issue is decided in a "democratic" manner if it is in response to public opinion. As Goldberg (citing Marshall) points out, Responding To Public Opinion is not how the death penalty has generally been abolished in European countries. It's just not. The Marshall piece is actually very interesting on this issue.
For example, how did Germany and Italy abolish the death penalty? " In a few cases, the reason is constitutional: Germany's and Italy's postwar constitutions abolished capital punishment outright, thus placing the issue effectively beyond public reach. " Hmm, written into the constitution - nope, doesn't sound like it happened In Response To Public Opinion.
How about Britain and France? "Parliamentary government may provide voters with more ideological variety, but it is much more resistant to political upstarts, outsiders, and the single-issue politics on which the death penalty thrives. In parliamentary systems, people tend to vote for parties, not individuals; and party committees choose which candidates stand for election. As a result, parties are less influenced by the odd new impulses that now and again bubble up from the electorate. In countries like Britain and France, so long as elite opinion remains sufficiently united (which, in the case of the death penalty, it has), public support cannot easily translate into legislative action." Insulated from public opinion - get it?
What do the Swedes think? "When a 1997 poll showed that 49 percent of Swedes wanted the death penalty reinstated, the country's justice minister told a reporter: "They don't really want the death penalty; they are objecting to the increasing violence. [...]" In other words, the Swedish leadership simply ignores the polls and insists they know what the public "really wants".
Is Marshall, a left-winger, the only person who thinks that European elites go against public wishes? Apparently not: "Referring to France, a recent article in the UNESCO Courier noted that "action by courageous political leaders has been needed to overcome local public opinion that has remained mostly in favour of the death penalty." " Apparently even UNESCO knows that opposing the death penalty means that sometimes public opinion needs to be "overcome".
To sum it up, "Basically, then, Europe doesn't have the death penalty because its political systems are less democratic, or at least more insulated from populist impulses, than the U.S. government." Or, so says Marshall the left-winger in the New Republic. Do you disagree with him too? (And UNESCO?)
Is Marshall wrong about something? Did Germany and Italy not abolish the death penalty in their postwar constitutions? Do Britain and France not have parliamentary systems where individuals vote for party, and the party sends legislators to parliament? Let me know.
You see, Goldberg's point, following Marshall, was that death penalty abolition in Europe did not happen as some kind of widespread, unanimous result of public opinion. It happened in spite of public opinion, or (loosely speaking) "undemocratically". In case you need it spelled out even more, Goldberg is responding to the type of critic who would say, "We should listen to Europeans, they are so civilized, they've abolished the death penalty!" Goldberg (and Marshall...) is saying, Hold on, that didn't happen because "The Europeans" wanted it to, it happened because their intellectual and bureaucratic elite wanted it to. In short he is saying that this is not a very good basis on which to think that Europeans have some kind of moral high ground, and no basis at all for them to have the right to lecture us about things.
Do you really disagree with that?
P.S. Apologies in advance if the Main Idea of this post was not contained in its opening sentence.... ;)
But, saying all the ideas go together in a coherent manner is not the same thing as saying that they are "in unison", like some vast army of marching lockstep soldiers. I said the piece was coherent. You twisted this statement into something about its statements being "in unison". And that is not what I said.
I didn't say that the stupid thing should have a grade-school structure, only that it's reasonable to expect some HINT of what it's driving at in the opening or closing.
Some hint? Sure, I'll agree with that. And he does give a HINT as to what the piece will be about in his opening sentence. Goldberg opens by talking about the Spanish officials' reticence to extradite. In the next sentence this is expanded to the EU. This HINTS that his piece will go on to talk about European intellectual elite opinion. Which he then proceeds to do. What's the problem?
It's true that his main theme is not contained in his first sentence...but like I said before, that is a silly thing to expect in the first place. If the theme of an opinion piece could be summed up in one sentence at the beginning, why write the rest of it?
But then, you're pretty much admitting it's just a bash Europe bit by a smug punk (look at him!) who's pissed off because Spain's not being a good little country and doing what it's told.
No, I'm not. You're putting words in my mouth.
Spain is standing up for it's law, and i admire that.
Everyone's entitled to his opinion.
although it may be correct in saying that the death penalty was abolished in a less than perfect democratic way, it implies that the European public wants the death penelty.
No, again, he actually doesn't imply that. What he does imply is that there is a lot of dissent about the issue in Europe, and that the anti-death penalty opinion is not as monolithic as we are often led to believe. And yes, in a few countries, he (and Marshall) does point to polls which suggest that maybe a majority would like the death penalty.
But how would we ever know for sure, if European politicians don't actually listen to their public in the first place? Hmmm....
It's a proven fact that the more educated and informed a person is then the more likely they are to be opposed to the death penalty
I would agree that this is probably an empirical fact, yes.
so it's a bit much to believe that European citizens are wishing they had it. I believe they are pretty well educated and informed over there, unlike vast stretches of population in many countries who only think they are.
Holy cow, this is an ignorant thing to say. With extremely broad brush you are now making the claim that Europeans Are More Educated Than Others. Give me a break. This is such a cartoonish stereotypical view that it's almost not worth taking seriously.
Goldberg and Marshall have polls on their side: actual results polls, you know, like-- "In Britain, ... opinion polls have shown that between two-thirds and three-quarters of the population favors the death penalty--about the same as in the United States."
And what is your response? In your opinion "it's a bit much to believe" this. Why? Because of the following brilliant piece of logical syllogistic reasoning:
A. There Is A Correlation Between Education Level And Opposition To Death Penalty
B. I Believe They Are Pretty Well Educated And Informed Over There!
I mean for crying out loud, this is one of the most illogical pieces of "reasoning" I have ever seen. Goldberg and Marshall have actual polls on their side. On your side, you have nothing but a cartoonish steretypical image of "Europeans over there" which apparently you hold in your head. You look at a poll and if the numbers aren't to your liking you, like the Swedish politician quoted by Marshall, say it can't be true because it doesn't conform to this image you have.
Truly illogical.
The second reason it's flawed is it throws a blanket over all of Europe.
You are right, it is flawed to make blanket statements about All Of Europe like that. (For example, to make statements such as "I believe they are pretty well educated and informed over there" :)
Of course, Goldberg's piece regularly makes it clear he is not throwing a blanket over All Of Europe. First there are his repeated assurances that he is talking only about their intellectual elite. Second there are the numerous hedges where he qualifies his statements, saying that they only apply in general, or to most European countries, but not necessarily all of them (at the end, for example, he excludes Britain from his statement that European countries don't have the right to lecture us).
His four or five examples of "self-loathing European elitism" which are supposed to support his point are insufficiant in quality and quantity to make any conclusive statements about individual countries
This may be true. After all to fully prove that European elites have a self-loathing (anti-Western) streak would probably require a huge sociological study over a period of at least 20 years, with postulates and definitions clearly given at the front and the whole thing written up in a several hundred page report.
But, this is an opinion piece in an online journal. There's not enough room to do that. Goldberg does what he can. He gives a few examples. You can't really ask for more. Of course you have the perfect right to still disagree with his conclusions, because you don't find his examples or argument persuasive, or whatever. That's ok.
But you didn't do that. You said it was "fractured" and that his examples "didn't tie in", or whatever. Which, as you now admit, is bogus: His examples do "tie in" and help support his point. Do they support his point beyond a reasonable doubt in a way that would stand up in a court of law? Hell no! Of course not!
But that's pretty unreasonable to expect in the first place. This is an opinion column. You don't seem to understand the nature of this form of expression.
Why doesn't he just say what he means? "There's nothing wrong with the death penalty so send over those terrorists so we can fry them you caviar-slurping pansies a$$es"???
I can't read his mind, so I don't know why he doesn't say that. However, I can guess.
Based on my reading of his piece, he doesn't believe that.
It doesn't seem to me like he thinks it would be so horrible if the Spanish don't end up sending them over. After all, at the end he does say "Spain can hold onto these terrorists if they like, basking in their moral superiority." It seems to me that you are still making the mistake of thinking that his main point in writing this piece was to say the Spanish should send the Al Qaeda people to the U.S. In other words, you are still gleaning what you think to be the thesis of this piece from its first sentence.
But that doesn't seem to be his main point at all (IMHO). His main point seems to be to comment on European intellectual elite opinion, in general: what is its nature? what are its motivations? should it be listened to? By comparison the whole Spain-extradition issue is small potatoes; he just uses that example as a launching point for a much wider discussion. His conclusion is clear ("there's pretty much not a nation on the European continent that has the right to lecture us about human rights or how to conduct our foreign policy"). His conclusion is not focused on the Spain issue per se (The next sentence: "Spain can hold onto these terrorists if they like, basking in their moral superiority.")
Why do you insist on thinking that it is?
Like the last period of sustained peace in Europe, the Euros want to spread the virtues of doing things the Euro way around the world. Last time it was through colonialism by military force. This time it's by the UN, international treaties like the global warming pact, and by Euro judges claiming extraterritorial authority.
The big difference is that in the 19th century the US, except for Latin America, let the Euros run amuck. This time we're not inclined to do so. And neither are the Chinese, Russians or Indians. So, the Euros will be reduced to their present moralizing and show trials.
I predict the present attempt at Euro expansion will end like the last, with a European conflict forcing the Euro's to drop efforts to dominate the world and attend to domestic matters again. Goldberg identifies the root cause - the push to make the EC into a federal European state forcing conventional euro-socialist policies on all countries, with no democratic vote and without majority support from the people. Every attempt to build a European super-state, from the Holy Roman Empire to Napolean to Hitler has resulted in war.
That's quotable.
Now, are you sure that the Turkish Republic, a nation respected by both east and west, really wants to be a part of the European clown circus?
(If you are a Turk or an American before you visit the bathroom, and a Turk or an American after you come out, what are you while you are in the bathroom?
European
you're a-pee-in'
Now, are you sure that the Turkish Republic, a nation respected by both east and west, really wants to be a part of the European clown circus?Just a few clown wannabes in our government think it's what Ataturk wanted.. Misinterpretation if you asked me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.