verisimilitude
Matt’s no.1 grammatical annoyance: Confusing the words “anxious” and “eager.” NPR news, of all people, just did it half an hour ago while I was making lunch. If you are anxious about something, you are anticipating it but you might be nervous about it–looking ahead, the emotions might not be overwhelmingly positive. If you are eager for something you anticipate it as well, but you are probably looking forward to it and welcome its approach. Feelings surrounding the upcoming event are good in the latter case. Nobody uses “eager” any more; “anxious” has become a one-size-fits-all word, and I’m on a one-man mission to remedy that. Dang it.
For all you more progressive-leaning folks out there, here’s a well-written and thought-provoking article from the other side of the fence. It’s the article from which the quote a few entries down was gleaned. What do you think?
Lesson 105 was today. I think I did okay. According to my instructor I’m right on track, but I set the bar for myself higher than that. We did lots of procedures, and about the only ones I did to my own satisfaction were takeoff and departure, ground reference and my s-turns over a straight reference object on the ground (in this case power lines). I suppose my power-on stall was okay too. But everything else I missed one or two items on the procedure. My minimum controllable airspeed (MCA) flight developed into a stall because I brought the flaps down too late and didn’t bring the power in soon enough. We have a checkride coming up in two lessons. It’s like a quiz except all they’re ascertaining is whether we’re actually applying ourselves and making measurable progress. So there’s really no pressure, even though there won’t be any instruction taking place during the flight–just observation. But I want to know these procedures cold by then. Busy weekend.
Pictures:
On the ramp after landing and shutdown. There are an intimidating number of things to keep track of. You can see why memorizing procedures is key–I have to keep my brain free for other things besides knowing what to do when. Like actually flying the airplane, scanning for traffic and communicating.
My right hand is on the throttle*. We never hold the control yoke with two hands–the right hand is always free to adjust everything else. Throttle, mixture, trim, flaps, fuel selector, directional gyro, lights, radio, transponder… There’s a lot.
*note: I should point out that the above picture is simulated. I’m not actually in the air. Mr. Hahn was a good sport, though, and took the picture from low enough so that you couldn’t actually see the trees next to the ramp. But it’s a close enough facsimile of my aspect during flight.
Whoa, good thing you don’t have a million gauges/buttons/dials that need your attention.
I’m eager for the day when you’re an official/professional/tight Pilot.
A Long Response To The Article
As a member of the left I view the ‘anti-American’ assertions of the right as a form of moral cowardice.
What they see as ‘anti-American’ I see as:
1. Reflecting a deep respect for America and her people and reflecting a fundamental belief that we are a good enough people and a strong enough country to act morally.
2. Those expressing the sentiment are American, ultimately patriotic, while those who brush criticism under the covers have no love of country.
Part of the reason intellectuals are so ‘anti-American’ is because we are informed. We know of the ethically gray decisions we make, the questionable activities we participate in, and yes, the atrocities we commit.
Intellectuals accept no excuses. We view dialogue and investigation as healthy.
The mantra of the far right was that dissent during Viet Nam (and other conflicts) brought “comfort to the enemy.” Intellectuals refused to cower out of fear of a distant enemy.
One particularly telling area where that article misses the point (re Bush):
“He is much hated among the European intelligentsia, and there are frequent calls for his prosecution as a war criminal, especially among those who took the mass atrocities of a Saddam Hussein or a Pol Pot with equanimity.”
No. No one (sane) defends Saddam Hussein or Pol Pot.
The crux of the issue is that expecting an American President to act merely better then Hussein and Pol Pot sets the bar too low.
It is no point of pride to say “the leader of the free world has been indirectly or directly responsible for fewer atrocities then notoriously sociopathic dictators.”
The patriotism and respect for America comes in saying, “We refuse to torture.” It is holding ourselves to a high standard.
But, to give the article credit, it is right about the intellectual lefts dislike of Bush with this statement: “He sees the world in black-and-white terms, with clear and absolute differences between good and evil, right and wrong.”
The problem is that by seeing the US as right (and white) that means there is no need to correct our actions or examine our weaknesses (obviously, there is no reason to really investigate Abu Ghraib because we’re the good guys and we’d never do anything like that! The pictures lie!).
George W. Bush once talked about the “soft bigotry of low expectations.” The right often fails to see the Anti-Americanism of low expectations and the patriotism of high expectations.
I agree with you to the extent that I take issue with the article’s slightly simplistic equating of anti-Americanism with Bush-hating. He certainly isn’t a personification of every individual nook and cranny of American society, in whatever axis you choose to measure us by. But in a greatly (overly?) simplified America, I think the article makes a valid point. The extent to which the article’s assertions makes intuitive sense will be analogous to the extent that your own worldview parallels mainstream America’s, and thus Bush’s.
No. No one (sane) defends Saddam Hussein or Pol Pot.
I don’t see Johnson asserting they did. He’s just making the point that the outcry, the negative response among the intelligensia is much virulent against Bush than it was again the above dictators. He’s not saying they defended them, only that they were far more indifferent to arguably far worse crimes against humanity.
The problem is that by seeing the US as right (and white) that means there is no need to correct our actions or examine our weaknesses
On the contrary, I think the Bush administration is fully aware that the situations in Iraq and closer to home aren’t going as well as they should. As you know, Bush even admitted responsiblity for the failure of the situation in New Orleans, to the (debatable) extent to which the federal government was responsible. Awareness of failure and the admission of it are two different things, though. Think about it in purely utilitarian terms. Awareness of failure is a very useful thing–it enables us to shore up what needs shoring up and make corrections where they need to be made. Admission of failure, on the other hand, really serves no useful purpose in the public arena except giving those who held dissenting opinions the moral satisfaction of hearing they were right and the culpable party was wrong. Not only that, but to those who are depending on our aid and support and who agree with the goals of our policies, it shakes their confidence in our ability to come through when we need to come through. Admission of failure may be a very healthy and necessary action when we talk about interpersonal relationships and such, but I don’t think you can scale up the principle to the macro-political level and still have function the same way.
:)
I’m eager for that day too.
(I’m not going to live down my little grammatical tirade, am I?)
p.s.
This last point is what most liberals are referring to when they speak of the current administration as being “out of touch with reality.” But you can very well project confidence (Bush’s oft-repeated “resolve”) while making fairly major corrections, which may go noticed or unnoticed by those looking primarily for an overt admission of failure.
Disagree re: the admission of failure in that I think it is a lot more beneficial politically. A refusal to admit negative things gives the impression there is no awareness or drive to correct. At the very least it brings into question the swiftness and urgency of corrective measures.
In a sense that is a variation on “giving those who held dissenting opinions the moral satisfaction of hearing they were right and the culpable party was wrong” but it serves a purpose – because making that kind of admission is hard, politicians are loathe to do it. Moreover, once they do, they put more of their own prestige and credibility on the line fixing it.
Refusing to accept responsibility publicly is a way of deflecting any further risk of credibility. If Bush said, for example “things have gone wrong in Iraq, and I know it. We did make mistakes. But I will make sure those mistakes are corrected swiftly” that would be meaningful. It sets a goal by which he can be judged (and because he knows that, encourages him to perform well).
“Not only that, but to those who are depending on our aid and support and who agree with the goals of our policies, it shakes their confidence in our ability to come through when we need to come through.”
I also think this is inaccurate. I think an honest assessment of how we do emboldens our allies and increases our credibility around the world. Several factors are at play:
1. We appear to abide by our own standards and reduce any charges of hypocrisy.
2. When we say something is going well or that an issue is important, we have an established reputation for truth telling and our positions will be more powerful and persuasive.
3. It shows more resolve to come through when you are aware things are not going well, then to come through when you believe things are going well. To use the same example so far (but it works for many): if you admit the situation in Iraq has gone badly but still send troops, that underlines the importance you place on success and makes your point more forceful.
4. There is a downside to refusing to admit things which are obvious both at home and abroad. It gives the impression you are detached or unaware. I believe this is why Bush (correctly) took some of the blame for the Federal response to Katrina. It was the right thing to do, and it was also dictated by his falling tide in the polls.
Re: p.s.
This is an interesting point. Part of the problem is this: how much of a duty does a President have to reassure those who do not assume his good faith? (At home or abroad).
My tendency is to think there is a strong duty – that the President works for all of the American people (even those who did not vote for him or did not vote at all). In that sense, I think the President does have a duty to attempt to be a uniter and not a divider and thus put genuine effort into reassuring concretely (this can be done many ways … perhaps by acknowledging criticism directly or acknowledging it indirectly by recommending policies and bills that shore up the areas of weakness).
I think this President has not done enough of that. There was a golden opportunity to embrace the findings of the 9/11 commission – there was the chance to make the creation of the Dept of Homeland Security genuinely bipartisan (the idea was originally Leibermans). Even after Katrina, the GOP could form a bi-partisan commission (they voted against it, now claiming procedural grounds).
These are all the types of actions that other Presidents have embraced (including Reagan).
I don’t want to get off the path too much on Bush. Bottom line: I think you’re right that there is some value to firmness and “resolve” but that it’s a precarious and difficult balance for any politician.
Fair enough. I’ll just make one last point re: admitting guilt. As a libertarian/conservative I hear the liberal media peppered with phrases like “gives the impression” and “projects the image” with reference to international and domestic policy. And really oftentimes it seems like the only criterion by which the current administration is being measured is whether they are projecting the right image at home and abroad. I’ll be the first to admit that the administration has failed pretty miserably on that front, and Bush, through his ineffectual (to say the least) skills as a communicator, certainly isn’t helping the case. But when the liberal establishment holds up our credibility and image in the world (that often intangible and abstract diplomatic concept) as seemingly more to be aspired, by their constant harping about it, than doing what is right, it strikes me as a case of misplaced priorities. The elevation of image over substance, in other words. To coin a Bush-ism, doing the right thing is better than looking good.
I think this President has not done enough of that. There was a golden opportunity to embrace the findings of the 9/11 commission – there was the chance to make the creation of the Dept of Homeland Security genuinely bipartisan (the idea was originally Leibermans). Even after Katrina, the GOP could form a bi-partisan commission (they voted against it, now claiming procedural grounds).
I wholeheartedly agree. Being an effective communicator is an absolutely essential skill for a president, and I’ll readily make the case that this area is one of our current president’s biggest shortcomings.
“To coin a Bush-ism, doing the right thing is better than looking good.”
Agreed.
Doing the right thing is the bottom line – the minimum standard for anything close to success.
Doing the right thing the right way is even better.
Doing the right thing, the right way, and doing it in a transparent manner is probably ideal.