Reed on Statemanship
Nov 01, 06 | 1:37 pm by Joshua HolmesIn Peeing on Hydrants, Fred Reed writes:
What we call statesmanship is, emotionally and morally, indistinguishable from gang war in South Chicago. The scale is more imposing and, under some administrations, the grammar better. Aggressive males rise to power in heavily armed countries of many millions. Then they push and shove, bark and bow-wow at others like themselves in other countries. The tribal trappings remain, particularly among the warriors: Baubles and medals and patches and different hats, talk of honor and duty and valor. Nah. Males dogs in an alley.
November 1st, 2006 at Nov 01, 06 | 3:05 pm
His writing and thought process are interesting, and entertaining. But in the end, he bashes capitalism for being the commercial form of men’s animalistic tendencies.
Meanwhile, he has been bashing the government for being the political form. So he must just be enraged at male instincts, and not necessarily the systems they work within.
November 1st, 2006 at Nov 01, 06 | 3:23 pm
DANGER, DANGER WILL ROBINSON! “Interesting… but IDEOLOGICALLY IMPURE.” MUST INOCULATE SELF FROM INFECTION! ZOOT! BUZZ WHIRR!
The observation that the author’s actual problem is with “male instincts” and not “the systems they work within” is an astoundingly acute non-observation, considering the entire screed is littered with statements like “I sometimes think that the defects of men… are equally understated” and “Men, like street dogs, are both territorial and creatures of the pack. It starts early because it is instinctive.”
November 1st, 2006 at Nov 01, 06 | 5:23 pm
Sorry, I figured the linked piece was about politics given the nature of this site, and was simply surprised to find it wasn’t after I read the whole thing.
“Ma bad dawg. Ah sed, MA BAD!”
November 1st, 2006 at Nov 01, 06 | 5:45 pm
I am a man of many interests and talents.
Good-looking, too.
November 1st, 2006 at Nov 01, 06 | 8:32 pm
Don’t forget humble.
November 1st, 2006 at Nov 01, 06 | 9:05 pm
A plausible and satisfying explanation that happens to be untrue, or simplified to the point of uselessnesss.
November 1st, 2006 at Nov 01, 06 | 9:57 pm
YOU’VE BEEN HERE BEFORE.
Sure you have. Sure. I never forget a face. Come on over, let me shake your hand! Tell you something: I recognized you by the way you walk even before I saw your face good…
Can I read the sign? You bet I can!… It says OPENING SOON on top, and under that, ANSWERED PRAYERS, A NEW KIND OF STORE. …
Interesting name for a store, ain’t it? Answered Prayers. Makes you wonder what’s for sale inside. Why, with a name like that it could be anything. Anything at all.
— Stephen King, Needful Things
November 2nd, 2006 at Nov 02, 06 | 5:43 pm
This would be solved if the workers of the world, both male and female, would rise up and unite!