Comments: Questions Answered

OK, it looks like either a butterfly or 2 asparigus back to back.
WE pay the UN a great deal of money to look the other way, and they earn every cent.

Posted by Mike Meyer at December 30, 2008 12:01 AM

Seth? Hello?

Posted by Coldtype at December 30, 2008 02:57 AM

About 60 years ago, when it started to become clear that Germany would lose the war, a few people started to suggest that Jerusalem be made an international city, and that the United Nations, once established, should run it.

The idea, I think, was that the entire world had an interest in peace in the region, and only an international body could avoid the bloody fighting over national and religious issues.

Everyone had a good laugh over that one, but when they sobered up the next day, the headache was terrible.

Posted by Dave at December 30, 2008 08:19 AM

Do you think the U.S. could engineer something like this today? My impression is that U.S. influence has diminished quite a bit under Bush.

Posted by SteveB at December 30, 2008 10:33 AM

wow thx for the clarification i will never doubt the power of the zionist lobby again, striking fear in the hearts of koreans everywhere.

Only the great Islamic Republic of Iran stands fast against Zionism!

There, did I fulfill your test? This is like the Soviet system where political opinions are a sign of mental disease.

Posted by Seth at December 30, 2008 10:49 AM

I see the hypothesis of my psychological experiment has been proven correct.

Posted by Jonathan Schwarz at December 30, 2008 11:05 AM

"wow thx for the clarification i will never doubt the power of the zionist lobby again, striking fear in the hearts of koreans everywhere.

"Only the great Islamic Republic of Iran stands fast against Zionism!"

Such thin skins, have the hasbara brigades.

Posted by Navid at December 30, 2008 11:32 AM

Ok so what was your hypothesis? That I am a sarcastic asshole? That I will respond to simplistic juxtapositions posing as analysis?

Or was it even more subtle and profound...that people who are not kneejerk supporters of Hamas may have consistency in their positions?

Where is the psychology in any of this, Commisar Schwarz?

Posted by Seth at December 30, 2008 11:56 AM

Ok so what was your hypothesis?

Interestingly, one part of the hypothesis was that you wouldn't be able to perceive what the hypothesis was.

Posted by Jonathan Schwarz at December 30, 2008 12:11 PM

kneejerk supporters of Hamas

That's the only reason I read this blog, for the uncritical support of Hamas.

Posted by laym at December 30, 2008 12:28 PM

Oh great...a test that no one can figure out...but which you always fail...sounds perfect for the Lubyanka, Comrade!

Posted by Seth at December 30, 2008 01:15 PM

That's the only reason I read this blog, for the uncritical support of Hamas.

That, and the Stalinism.

Posted by SteveB at December 30, 2008 01:37 PM

Oh great...a test that no one can figure out

Actually, you are just one person. I suspect people with other types of personalities would find it pretty easy to understand.

Posted by Jonathan Schwarz at December 30, 2008 02:21 PM

Let's all cut Seth some slack. It's obvious that he's just recently discovered that the world is a shitty place where the powerful act as they please, without reference to law or morality. I remember when I was 16 and first came upon this idea, and I couldn't shut up about it either.

Posted by SteveB at December 30, 2008 02:56 PM

Seth, I think the test was something like this--

A) You ask a question about why the UN head would feel pressure to be soft on Israel.

B) Jon gives an entirely reasonable explanation with supporting evidence about why a UN head might feel pressure to be soft on Israel. It seems a previous head might have lost his job in part because he was, in the view of the US government, overly harsh on Israel.

C) How do you respond? Well, it was with sarcasm about the power of the mighty Israel lobby and its ability to strike fear into the hearts of Koreans. Well, yeah, if they want to be the head of the UN and want US support.

Now if you had replied "Oh, that's how it could work" or even "Well, here's an argument about why it might not be the way you say" and then gave a reasonable counterargument, I'm gonna guess the hypothesis would have been falsified.

Posted by Donald Johnson at December 30, 2008 02:58 PM

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is know to be a good friend of the US and Israel.

Posted by abb1 at December 30, 2008 03:09 PM

Now if Seth had capitalized certain words for emphasis, a la Mike Meyer everything would be peachy keen.

Posted by sloweducation at December 30, 2008 03:17 PM

and my analysis, for what its worth, which is poo poo, is that seth suffers from the liberal case of a RWA personality type...

Posted by sloweducation at December 30, 2008 03:19 PM

Jon: This thread is degenerating into a sustained criticism of one person...

Posted by Save the Oocytes at December 30, 2008 05:05 PM

Seems more a question of polemical or rhetorical style than psychology, but what do I know?

If I can provide anyone with two minutes satisfaction at the whipping post I am happy that I have been of service today.

Posted by Seth at December 30, 2008 05:07 PM

Thanks, seth. Will you be available tomorrow if we need you?

Posted by Donald Johnson at December 30, 2008 06:21 PM

Seems more a question of polemical or rhetorical style than psychology

Well, I suppose you can call "knowing nothing about a subject, refusing to learn even when others take the time to help you, yet still having extremely strong opinions about it" a rhetorical style.

Posted by Jonathan Schwarz at December 30, 2008 06:27 PM

Jon: So you're saying Seth is actually the online persona of Tom Friedman?

Posted by almostinfamous at December 30, 2008 09:47 PM

"Jon: So you're saying Seth is actually the online persona of Tom Friedman?"

Okay, I can't speak for Jon and didn't think I'd be defending seth, but that really is getting unfair. We're one step away from Godwin's law. Stop the madness now.

Posted by Donald Johnson at December 30, 2008 10:52 PM

No-moderation is no virtue when faced by heresy. Some people never learn. That's what reeducation camps are for!

Posted by Seth at December 30, 2008 11:27 PM

Hypothesis? Oh S**T! Do I have to second-guess everything I've just read...?
Great read, though! I do feel as though I've just read something insightful. Must. See. More.

Posted by Russ at December 31, 2008 01:04 AM

No-moderation is no virtue when faced by heresy. Some people never learn. That's what reeducation camps are for!

Thanks for your courage in the face of monstrous repression, Mr. Solzhenitsyn.

Posted by Jonathan Schwarz at December 31, 2008 12:15 PM

I know...it's amazing what we martyrs for the truth go through...me, Mumia, Whittaker Chambers...the list goes on and on.

As former teammates Jon I ask you, Can we move on from this? I resolve in 2009 not to be overly sarcastic on ATR and to limit my comments to the points at hand.

Posted by Seth at December 31, 2008 04:04 PM

Hey Don, I was just making a joke. i didn't know friedman was evil, i thought he was just another tool of the establishment who fills the NYT columns with a lot of hot air.

however, the last comment by seth is encouraging. hooray for truce and a happy new year to ATR readers and the writers:)

Posted by almostinfamous at December 31, 2008 10:00 PM

*Hugz*

Posted by Save the Oocytes at January 2, 2009 06:00 AM