by Andrew
So I'm reading Senator Byron Dorgan's new book, Take This Job and Ship It, and I get to the chapter where he's talking about environmental problems. He points out some of the problems we face when foreign countries don't force companies to bear the costs of their externalities, an important issue. He then points out (I'm paraphrasing, but the key phrase is accurate) that "This shouldn't be a Democrat or Republican issue, but an American one."
Karl Rove's got to be laughing about that one. Did he get to Senator Dorgan, or just the copy editor?
as someone who finds the "Democrat Party" trope fairly annoying, I must say that I find this particular quote fairly non-annoying.
It's a matter of context, after all--it's not as though the very word "Democrat", in ever context, is offensive. It's not as though I object to members of the Democratic Party being called "Democrats". That's what they call themselves.
And in this context, it seems to me "Democrat issue" means roughly "an issue that matters to Democrats".
So it just doesn't grate on my ears in the same way. At any rate, that's my reaction.
Posted by: kid bitzer | August 29, 2006 at 10:01 AM
I just found it amusing after the little tete-a-tete the other day, and I couldn't resist highlighting it, because it sounds a bit odd to me. Not a Democratic or Republican issue sounds better to my ear, but perhaps we need to hunt down Gary for the definitive call.
Posted by: Andrew | August 29, 2006 at 10:05 AM
I had to read if three times before I caught the problem, but I'm a sloppy reader.
Posted by: lily | August 29, 2006 at 10:10 AM
As a former Republic, I think the whole thing is a bit silly.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 29, 2006 at 10:19 AM
As a former Republic, I think the whole thing is a bit silly.
So you're a monarchy now, or what, Slarti?
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | August 29, 2006 at 10:24 AM
I'm a pure democracy now, Bernard.
Not sure if there actually is such a thing, actually.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 29, 2006 at 10:30 AM
I would assume that Slarti is an intrinsically heterogeneous state, whose nature is oblique.
Posted by: Bruce Baugh | August 29, 2006 at 10:32 AM
I think it's Stockholm Syndrome.
Posted by: John Thullen | August 29, 2006 at 10:33 AM
"we need to hunt down Gary for the definitive call"
by all means.
I believe you can contact him immediately by misspelling Gandhi. Or by putting too many dots into your ellipses..........It's like the Bat-phone, only quicker, and Alfred never answers.
Posted by: kid bitzer | August 29, 2006 at 10:36 AM
Good one, Bruce!
You could complete the similitude by assuming something malevolent about my nature, then bashing me over the head with it.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 29, 2006 at 10:36 AM
"It's" being Dorgan word choice, not Slart.
As for Slart, the club who had him as a member, agrees with him, or something...;)
Posted by: John Thullen | August 29, 2006 at 10:39 AM
So I'm reading Senator Byron Dorgan's new book, Take This Job and Ship It
WHY? No, seriously, Byron Dorgan is not a trade expert. He's a US Senator, not an economist. If you want a good anti-globalization book, read Stiglitz's Globalization and Its Discontents or Fair Trade for All. If you want a good counterpoint to that, see Doug Irwin's Free Trade Under Fire or Jagdish Bhagwati's In Defense of Globalization. But at least make it a book by an economist - not a politician masquerading as a polemicist.
Posted by: Minipundit | August 29, 2006 at 10:44 AM
Mini,
I was sent Senator Dorgan's book to review it. It would be impolite to review it without at least reading it first.
Posted by: Andrew | August 29, 2006 at 10:47 AM
Abstractions about the governmental structure aside, we must ask the real question - is Slartibartfast a state sponsor of terror?
Posted by: st | August 29, 2006 at 12:45 PM
I'm all for terror, st. I just watched Alien 3 last night, in point of fact.
Although the second one scared me a lot more, to tell the truth.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 29, 2006 at 12:51 PM
I always thought the Exorcist III was pretty damned terrorizing, and its only WMD was George C. Scott.
Posted by: Ugh | August 29, 2006 at 12:55 PM
Since Slarti is a former Republic he is a former state, sponser of terror movies.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | August 29, 2006 at 12:55 PM
It would be impolite to review it without at least reading it first.
"This book fills a much-needed gap."
Posted by: Josh | August 29, 2006 at 12:56 PM
Following up on my Cheney comment of yesterday:
F*ck Donald Rumsfeld.
And, from the looks of it, I guess I'll get to say the same thing about Rice and Bush.
Posted by: Ugh | August 29, 2006 at 01:05 PM
""This book fills a much-needed gap.""
If you made all of the table legs the same length, that wouldn't happen.
Posted by: Dantheman | August 29, 2006 at 01:21 PM
Why would anyone need a gap, and then fill it with a book?
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 29, 2006 at 01:27 PM
Why would anyone need a gap, and then fill it with a book?
The joke is that the gap was preferable.
Posted by: Gromit | August 29, 2006 at 01:59 PM
Ah. So I'm guessing that the gap wasn't much needed until the book came along.
I'm probably the only one puzzled by the phrasing of this, but it appears that clarity was sacrificed to the brevity god.
Which reminds me of someone, come to think of it...
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 29, 2006 at 02:04 PM
the brevity god
Who is correctly referred to as G.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | August 29, 2006 at 02:32 PM
I'm probably the only one puzzled by the phrasing of this, but it appears that clarity was sacrificed to the brevity god.
Too much clarity would kill the gag. The idea is that it sounds vaguely like praise until you think about it for a moment. If you rephrased it as "this book fills a gap that ought not to have been filled" all the humor would be drained out of it.
Posted by: Gromit | August 29, 2006 at 02:34 PM
I think I've noted my humor-draining properties in the past.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 29, 2006 at 02:49 PM
You're a singularity in the field of comedy, Slart.
Posted by: Anarch | August 29, 2006 at 03:05 PM
I prefer to think of myself as a democratic plurality.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 29, 2006 at 03:10 PM
Andrew - point taken. I thought you were reading it for fun. That would be curious indeed.
Posted by: Minipundit | August 29, 2006 at 03:34 PM
F*ck Donald Rumsfeld.
So we're facing a vast, global fascist threat and we're ready to fight">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/28/AR2006082800916.html">fight another war?
My goodness! Dangerous Donnie's ready to get jiggy! Grrr. Grr. Hold my cardigan, Dick!
Posted by: Paul | August 29, 2006 at 03:45 PM
So we're facing a vast, global fascist threat and we're ready to fight another war?
Plenty of Navy and Air Force jets not being used out there, plus Halliburton's stock is off its 52-week high and we don't have to compete with Jon Benet any more for airtime.
Chaaaaaaaaarrrrrge!!
Posted by: Ugh | August 29, 2006 at 03:50 PM
F*ck Donald Rumsfeld.
in the words of Matt Yglesias: Rumsfeld is a buffoon. A punchline. A well-known liar.
i'd also add: Rumsfeld is a vacuous, toffee-nosed, malodorous pervert.
Posted by: cleek | August 29, 2006 at 04:16 PM
A buffoon? Oh I don't know, but let's not be silly. Might I be a buffoon? Who knows? I could be, I might not be, it's undeterminable.
Punchline? Well, that's just wrong. Did I suggest something funny? No. Was I hinting at something? Of course not. Punchline? Let's be serious here, these are serious questions I'm asking myself and I need to give serious answers to me.
Well-known liar? Well, I like to think a lot of people know me. Do they stop me on the street? Certainly. Do people honk and waive? Of course. One fingered salutes? Everyday. Kisses from Lieberman? Sloppy. Liar? I wouldn't describe myself quite that way. Mendacious? On Tuesdays. Untruthful? The weekend. No longer operative statements? All the time. Silly? I'm a member of the party, though I was a member of the slightly-silly party for a very long time. But liar? Would I lie to me?
Vacuous? I don't think so. Unthoughtful? Maybe. Purposeless? In bed. Inane? I think I'm missing an 's' somewhere in that question. Vacuous? Let's just say that were I vacuous, you would know it, I would know you know it, you would know that I know that you know it, and it would be dangerous for the country.
Toffee-nosed? Now, I like toffee, I know I like toffee, I know where the toffee is, and it's just a matter of time before I get some more toffee. But toffee-nosed? I think not. Do I have a nose? It looks like it. Do I look down it at people?Right now. Is it brown? It seems that it might be so. Toffee flavored? My tongue's not long enough, sorry.
As for malodorous pervert, should I answer that question? Perhaps. Is it a good question? Ask me later. Do I know what malodorous means? No, but I will try to find out for me. Pervert? I don't feel comfortable talking about that in an open session. Could I be a pervert? It's a open question. Do I think about it? Constantly. Would I say I was obsessed with it? Well I wouldn't say that, you might, the voices in my head certainly do, my mother worried often, even the President cocked an eyebrow, though not without help from the Vice President, but would I say so? Sure.
Posted by: Ugh | August 29, 2006 at 04:50 PM
Eh, on a second read, that's not all that funny.
Posted by: Ugh | August 29, 2006 at 05:12 PM
If the terrorists learn that we can't fight a second war while taking them on, the terrorists will have won.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | August 29, 2006 at 06:51 PM
And I'd say "Democratic" would definitely be more correct, as the adjective, and less grating, but we'll hold back the assassination teams for now. (And I'm also always dubious that a politician is the actual author of writing that goes out under their name, and in any case, the copyeditor should have caught it; it seems unlikely Dorgan would have stetted it if the copyeditor had, but then I'd be rather surprised if Dorgan checked his own proofs.)
"This book fills a much-needed gap."
Moses Hadas, for the record. He also said "Thank you for sending me a copy of your book. I'll waste no time reading it."
Posted by: Gary Farber | September 03, 2006 at 08:20 PM