Ann Althouse is quickly becoming my favorite commentor

[Johne Cook]

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/06/wow-am-i-crazy-or-has-nyt-just-deployed.html

She says things that are as provocative as anything Ebert says, but has such
a winsome way of doing it that I feel like applauding her instead of
berating her.

Take this piece, for instance. I felt like standing and applauding her last
paragraph.

"Wow. Am I crazy, or has the NYT just deployed some powerful new liberal

bias technology?"<http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/06/wow-am-i-crazy-or-has-nyt-just-deployed.html> "I
mean, with the 'draws attention to' formulation, Times editors can concoct a
lede 'news' story making practically any tendentious ideological connection
they want."<http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/23/nyt-deploys-powerful-new-media-bias-weapon/>
The Times wields a rhetorical device — does it have a specific name? —
where you exclude human agency not with the passive voice but by making some
abstraction the subject of a sentence written in the passive voice.
The headline Mickey Kaus draws attention to is "Sagging Economy Draws
Attention to War Spending." In reality, *somebody* — e.g., Obama, the NYT
— is trying to tell us to look at Y instead of X. The headline absurdly
infuses the "sagging economy" with the will and the capacity to cause
"attention" to be diverted to the subject of war spending.
The word "attention" also drains the headline of human will. The truth is
that Obama/the NYT would like *people* to look at war spending instead of
the economy. "Attention" isn't an entity with powers of perception that can
be influenced to look at from one thing to another. The economy isn't trying
to get *attention* to look at flit immediately from the troublesome
subject of itself over to the preferred topic of war spending.
Real human beings, with interests and will, are trying to manipulate the
minds of other human beings, who also have interests and will. And there's
no evidence that the people have turned our attention to the subject the
would-be manipulators prefer. In fact, we're still looking at the economy.
*It's the economy, stupid*, a wise man once said. We're not stupid.

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |*
*

[n***@public.gmane.org]

Post by Johne Cook
Take this piece, for instance. I felt like standing and applauding her last
paragraph.

Really? I don't find her argument compelling. War spending is PART of the economy. Not separate from it. And it needs to be a part of the discussion on how to resolve the issue of debt and spending.


Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
"I want a song to learn and sing, of a life requited."-Echo & the Bunnymen

[Johne Cook]

I took her argument to be that Obama would have us look at war spending
(War! Spending!) /instead of/ the larger failing economy he's presiding
over. It's integrated, as you say.

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |*
*

Post by n***@public.gmane.org

Post by Johne Cook
Take this piece, for instance. I felt like standing and applauding her

last

Post by Johne Cook
paragraph.

Really? I don't find her argument compelling. War spending is PART of the
economy. Not separate from it. And it needs to be a part of the discussion
on how to resolve the issue of debt and spending.
Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
"I want a song to learn and sing, of a life requited."-Echo & the Bunnymen
--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Mike Findlay]

For the sake of conciliation, (still bristling at PCG's message), because I
think I am the one who originally brought Althouse to this list, (too
desperate?), and because Althouse is my favorite blogger - even when I disagree
with her she writes in such a graceful manner that it impossible to get mad, or
take umbrage; I agree completely about Althouse.

I've said on numerous occasions that I wish I had had a law professor like her,
assuming her professorial style is remotely similar to her writing, and the
thought process it reveals. She makes me proud to be a lawyer because she so
eloquently reveals how the legally trained mind thinks.

Mike F.






________________________________
From: Johne Cook <***@gmail.com>
To: DADL (off topic) <dadl-***@thehood.us>
Sent: Thu, June 23, 2011 10:28:26 AM
Subject: [DADL-OT] Ann Althouse is quickly becoming my favorite commentor

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/06/wow-am-i-crazy-or-has-nyt-just-deployed.html


She says things that are as provocative as anything Ebert says, but has such
a winsome way of doing it that I feel like applauding her instead of
berating her.

Take this piece, for instance. I felt like standing and applauding her last
paragraph.

"Wow. Am I crazy, or has the NYT just deployed some powerful new liberal

bias
technology?"<http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/06/wow-am-i-crazy-or-has-nyt-just-deployed.html>
"I
mean, with the 'draws attention to' formulation, Times editors can concoct a
lede 'news' story making practically any tendentious ideological connection
they
want."<http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/23/nyt-deploys-powerful-new-media-bias-weapon/>
The Times wields a rhetorical device — does it have a specific name? —
where you exclude human agency not with the passive voice but by making some
abstraction the subject of a sentence written in the passive voice.
The headline Mickey Kaus draws attention to is "Sagging Economy Draws
Attention to War Spending." In reality, *somebody* — e.g., Obama, the NYT
— is trying to tell us to look at Y instead of X. The headline absurdly
infuses the "sagging economy" with the will and the capacity to cause
"attention" to be diverted to the subject of war spending.
The word "attention" also drains the headline of human will. The truth is
that Obama/the NYT would like *people* to look at war spending instead of
the economy. "Attention" isn't an entity with powers of perception that can
be influenced to look at from one thing to another. The economy isn't trying
to get *attention* to look at flit immediately from the troublesome
subject of itself over to the preferred topic of war spending.
Real human beings, with interests and will, are trying to manipulate the
minds of other human beings, who also have interests and will. And there's
no evidence that the people have turned our attention to the subject the
would-be manipulators prefer. In fact, we're still looking at the economy.
*It's the economy, stupid*, a wise man once said. We're not stupid.

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |*
*