Pissy on the pissy

Pissy on the pissy
: In an incredibly long-winded, humorless, overblown rant, one Arthur Silber attacks me for dubbing those who would see a dark lining to the silver cloud of Saddam’s capture as the Coalition of the Pissy.

I was simply paralyzed by this massive, apparently unanswerable intellectual onslaught. But then I remembered that the originator of that phrase has written for periodicals such as TV Guide, People and Entertainment Weekly. Lest you think that is merely a cheap shot: I mention those publications only because they reveal the kind of complex and nuanced intellectual pedigree from which slogans such as this latest one spring, as I will proceed to document in this post. I also realized something much more important: all those who adopted Coalition of the Pissy as their war whoop of condemnation against anyone declining to join their mindless dance of joy are nothing more than moral bullies and intellectual thugs. They are the enemies of mind, and of thought — and they are the enemies of truth, justice and freedom in a very deep sense. They are the advance guard of the Truth Police. For them, history does not exist, nor does the past in any meaningful sense at all, nor does the future.

These barbarians live only in the moment, only in the now — disconnected from everything that has become before, and from everything that is likely to flow in the future from our present actions. Thought, principles and ideas are alien to them, in the most profound sense imaginable.

Oh, my. But you forgot: We eat puppies, too. [via Kevin Eugene Cole]

28 responses to “Pissy on the pissy”

  1. Terry Heaton Avatar

    I actually read this guy’s tirade. “Light of reason?” I think not. There’s certainly nothing reasonable in that smegma. And methinks he doth not grok a single word uttered here. Give such ranting lunacy no place.
    And regarding living in the moment, here’s a wonderful quote from Blaise Pascal’s Pensees:
    Let each one examine his thoughts, and he will find them all occupied with the past and the future. We scarcely ever think of the present, and if we think of it, it is only to take light from it to arrange the future…So we never live, but we hope to live; and, as we are always preparing to be happy, it is inevitable we should never be so.
    Peace.

  2. Eye Opener Avatar
    Eye Opener

    Peace? Such may well flow from recognizing that for me to “Be, here… NOW!” I must also relate to having “Been, there, then”… I must learn from our past OR be subject to repeating dysfunctional decisions made then.
    Being, here and now, is never a matter of beatific ‘yeah, whatever… go with the flow, wherever it goes…’ because there ARE humans who’ll take ‘the flow’ straight over the edge!

  3. Mike G Avatar

    The worst part about getting disconnected from everything that has come before is they charge you $25 to get reconnected.
    Buddy, I’m glad you have a blog, because nobody else loves the sound of your whiny voice like you do!

  4. Andrea Harris Avatar

    Jesus. What the f*** is Silber on? He used to be a reasonable guy. I admit I’ve not read his site in a while. That entry is just… a mess.

  5. Andrea Harris Avatar

    And just out of curiosity, what are all the other commenters here on? Have you all started celebrating New Year’s early?

  6. anne.elk Avatar

    Not only does the shoe fit Jeff, sadly you look good in it.
    Nabob of negativism? You might spend a weekend rereading your entries. Your posts overflow with negativity and bad vibes ooze out the sides. I have pointed out when you repeat rumors, repeat the party line, repeat obviously fraudulent reports, and your bad mouthing almost anyone you can, often to score a cheap shot.
    There’s a New Year’s resolution here for you, for all of us, ….
    Best wishes, and here’s hoping for a good New Year for you and yours.

  7. Jeff Jarvis Avatar

    Anne: Always the ray of sunshine, you are.

  8. Jeff Jarvis Avatar

    Andrea: They’re smoking the same stuff Silber is. Bad s***, that.

  9. Ralpher Avatar

    Hey, be careful. You’ll hurt Arthur’s feelings. He’ll write about how mean people are. He’ll talk about how everybody “personally attacks” him. He’ll talk about how he himself nobly avoids such personal attacks in his writing. He’ll cry and whine. He’ll make a big, melodramatic “exit” from blogging because the level of discourse has sunk so far below his own top-shelf standards.
    And then you’ll see him blogging again in a few days, as if nothing ever happened, resuming the bombastic, self-righteous opposition to a war he once supported.

  10. JBK Avatar

    Sorry, Mr. Jarvis, but he has a point — regular reading of you, Instapundit, Andy Sullivan and your ilk suggest a holier-than-thou smarminess and THAT’S what Silber was objecting to. With your side, if someone dares to disagree or express any concern that Bush lied this country into an unprovoked war, then the name calling starts, the patriotism is questioned – what was Sullivan’s infamous line about decadent fifth columnists in the blue states? Sorry, bub, but you and the other warbloggers do not have a monopoly on love of this country. Silber has rightly called you and the others on the regular habit of disparaging political opponents, the implying that because someone disgarees with you, they’re somehow Saddam lovers. (You know what, I was never photographed shaking Saddams hand with a big goofy grin on my face, that was Rummy). Maybe Silber expressed it all a tad overwroughtly, but hey, that wouldn’t be the first time that has happened on a blog would it? He is expressing views felt by a LOT of people. We gave your hero Bush the benefit of the doubt, the guy could have asked this country to do just about anything after 9/11, and he has frittered it all away with his buffoonery and the basic GOP habit of wrapping themselves in the flag and impugning the patriotism of Democrats. The breaking point for me, Mr Jarvis, was when your heroes in the right went after Max Cleland – the guy left 3 limbs behind on a battlefield serving this country, and your side had the fucking gall to question his patriotism because he didn’t like aspects of the homeland security act. Silber is right, and I’m sorry he hurt your obviously oh-so-delicate feelings, but maybe now you and Andy Milky Loads and Instahack know how it feels when you call someone names (I believe you were mentioned by Silber thanks to your very clever “Coalition of the Pissy” phrase, aimed at those who apparently weren’t sufficiently verbal enough in praising Dear Leader on the capture of his former Iraqi buddy, no? (Oh no, and I called people names there, gasp, what is political dialogue in this country coming to?)

  11. Mithras Avatar

    incredibly long-winded, humorless, overblown rant …
    Pot, meet kettle.

  12. Andy Freeman Avatar
    Andy Freeman

    > your ilk suggest a holier-than-thou
    Except in this case, Jarvis et all are holier-than-thou. Why? Because getting rid of Saddam was a better thing than tolerating more innovation in the use of plastic shredders.
    Keep believing “Bush lied”, but that won’t make it true.

  13. Jeremy Avatar

    Mmmm….puppies

  14. Sandy P. Avatar

    Cleland sunk himself. He did, after all, vote against the boy scouts. In CA ok, but in his home state???? That was but 1 of the many votes that came back to haunt him.
    Losing limbs does not entitle him to his seat until he dies. He’s also been acting “pissy.” Boy, now that I wrote that, I realized that’s been Peanuts problem since he lost. What’s in the water there????

  15. JBK Avatar

    To Andy Freeman: Do you genuinely not see the arguments Silber made, or do you just not care? You say, “Jarvis IS holier-than-thou…Getting rid of Saddam was a better thing than tolerating more innovation in the use of plastic shredders.” Um, well, sure, but of course that wasn’t the reason your man in the White House cited for invading. Imminent threat, WMD, and all that, remember? But if those inconvenient facts are pointed out, well then, we must be in favor of those shredders, right? By the way, was Saddam not using those shredders, say, 15 years ago? Are they not being used right now in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? If your argument is that innovation in torture devices is cause for war, great, admit it, and let’s take out most of the Middle East and parts of Africa while we’re at it, but that’s not what was sold to the country, and that’s not what the essay was about. Silber pointed out the tendency of your side to question anyone’s patriotism if they happen to opine that George W. Bush is a lying sack of shit. Your willingness to ignore the point and claim Jarvis is somehow superior than war opponents makes the very case Silber is ranting about. Finally, “Keep believing Bush lied?” Wow, well, you got me there! No lies from this White House. Not from such an honorable fellow and sidekick Cheney. Totally on the straight and narrow there. Yep.

  16. DakRoland Avatar

    Um, well, sure, but of course that wasn’t the reason your man in the White House cited for invading. Imminent threat, WMD, and all that, remember?
    Incorrect. Please bring up a copy of Bush’s address and cite to me specifically where he stated that Iraq was an immediate threat. Cite to me specifically where he said that WMDs were the only reason to go into Iraq. There were several reasons for going into Iraq, but only AFTER we had exhausted all other avenues for the last 10 years.
    And personally, I don’t believe Jeff is ‘holier-than-thou”…but I sure do find him more convincing than the “Bush Lied” crowd. If you’re going to make accusations of such a sort, don’t you think it would be wise to cite specific examples of why that is your position? (No “I feel” statements. Cite facts, not emotion.) Frankly, I’ve always believed if you can put forward a reasonable argument with cold, hard facts, you make your position much stronger than if you build it on a weak foundation of baseless accusations and “I got this feeling” conspiracies.

  17. Wagner Avatar

    > (You know what, I was never photographed
    > shaking Saddams hand with a big goofy grin on
    > my face, that was Rummy)
    Statements like this, by the way, are the very quintessence of the word “pissy”, if by pissy we mean “petty quibbling over irrelevant issues”. Adding to the pissiness factor is the smug tone usually accompanying it. As if the person mentioning the Rumsfeld photo actually believes they’ve revealed a staggering bit of unknown information *that once revealed, will bring the whole sandcastle of lies down around our heads*.
    But if you were to parse out their interpretation of the Rumsfeld photo, what, exactly, is it supposed to be? Something like, “See, someone from the Bush Administration was friendly with Saddam back in the day, so calling him an enemy now is just a convenient fiction.”
    Sounds good– if one is totally oblivious of the geopolitical situation at the time of the photo.
    So, to recap: in 1983, when that photo was taken, the Cold War was still raging. Meanwhile, only a few years earlier, a theocratic dictatorship had come into power in neighboring Iran, holding dozens of Americans hostages for over a year. Because of the Shiite majority in Iraq, a similar Islamist revolution threatened to spill over into that country– and similarly, encourage the Islamist radicals throughout the region to engage in their own fanatic upheaveals. Destablizing the Middle East. Threatening a conflagaration in a war with Israel. Threatening to devastate the Western world’s oil supply, a crucial economic and national defense resource. Inviting the Soviets to begin moving their own chess pieces in the region, calling in their own chits. Looking for an opening.
    So in 1983, here’s Saddam. A brutal authoritarian, yes, but at the time, not much more brutal than his neighbors– and certainly preferable in every conceivable way to the Ayatollah. What’s more, he’s the head of the Baath, a secular political party, which in the 70’s was credited for modernizing Iraq, building many universities and instituting relatively progressive social programs. And he’s at war with Iran. And the enemy of my enemy etc.
    In retrospect, and the intervening 20 years, it does indeed seem foolish and wrong to provide Saddam with logistical support in his battle against Iran. To criticize him publicly for using WMD, but insist relations are still good, in private– as the Reagan administration did, in the figure of Rumsfeld.
    Then again, in those intervening 20 years, there was more use of WMD in Iran, then *al anfal* in Kurdistan, then the torture and mass graves, then invasion of Kuwait, then the support of terrorism, then the continued covert WMD development, then more torture and mass graves, and on and on. And what seemed like unpleasant but necessary realpolitik at the time, in 1983, begins to look more and more like woefully bad judgement and a betrayal of our values, now. (And in retrospect it was, on both counts.) But anyone who knows even the barest minimum of the geopolitical context which helped to put Rumsfeld’s hand in Saddam’s, and what subsequently happened in the two decades, cannot possibly believe the handshake suggests anything normative or meaningful. Cannot possibly believe it proves that Saddam’s status as an enemy now is merely a convenient fiction. Cannot possibly believe it represents anything other than a decision that was regrettable– and needs to be amended. Cannot possibly believe it signifies anythin– except, perhaps, in Hitchens’ formulation, a symbol of our doubled, triped obligation to set things right now. For the Iraqi people, for the people of the Middle East. For us.
    And that’s why I tend to think people who cite the Rumsfeld handshake as if it was some devastating gotcha are actually rather ignorant. And rather than try and learn more, and bring some serious, fully contextualized understanding to the table, so they can form a more nuanced deliberation to the central political discourse of our time, are preferring instead to quibble over irrelevant issues.
    You know, being pissy.

  18. Robobubba Avatar

    Wagner nails it.
    …”the very quintessence of the word “pissy”, if by pissy we mean “petty quibbling over irrelevant issues”. Adding to the pissiness factor is the smug tone usually accompanying it”
    I was going to say that, but I couldn’t spell “quintessence”.
    But Wagner, don’t you realize Saddam’s capture is a terrible defeat for the Bush administration because Saddam will now reveal he shook hands with Donald Rumsfeld 20 years ago which up to now has only been known to a few million websites?
    If you meet with the enemy it’s treason.
    If I meet with the enemy it’s diplomacy.

  19. Andrea Harris Avatar

    You know, if you really want to get Silber’s goat, say that his post reads like an Ellsworth Toohey column. Because, having re-read it, it does.

  20. Jack Tanner Avatar
    Jack Tanner

    JBK – When Bush said Iraq wasn’t an imminent threat and he wasn’t going to wait for them to become one did that mean they were an imminent threat? I guess your argument that Bush based the war on lieing about Iraq being an immediate threat only works if you lie about it.

  21. DSmith Avatar

    Rant isn’t the half of it. Sheesh, is this what reading Rand does to people?

  22. David Avatar

    JBK said: “Silber has rightly called you and the others on the regular habit of disparaging political opponents, the implying that because someone disgarees with you, they’re somehow Saddam lovers.”
    And, of course, nobody from the left ever engages in THAT sort of behavior. The civility, gentility, and courtesy from those who are against the war have been indeed a cool breath of Fresh Air, but not enough to cool the ardor of all those flag-waving warmongering Shrub supporters.
    Or something.

  23. Martin Lindeskog Avatar

    DSmith said: “Rant isn’t the half of it. Sheesh, is this what reading Rand does to people?”
    What kind of comment is this? I have read Ayn Rand’s books and studied her philosophy – Objectivism. I am pro-war, i.e, America’s right to defend itself against threats from terrorists and hostile and evil countries. For more on my position, please read my post, THE BATTLE OF IDEAS: CHICKENHAWKS VERSUS PACIFICISTS.
    Best Premises,
    Martin Lindeskog
    Gothenburg, Sweden.

  24. Charlie Avatar

    Martin — it means “this interminable screed could use an editor, just like Atlas Shrugged.”
    Glad to help.

  25. Diana Avatar

    Jeff,
    What happened to those WMDs? You know, the remains of the toxins and delivery mechanisms that we sold him before August, 1990?

  26. PJF Avatar

    Wow, looks like the pissy have formed a kind of coalition, or something, and are coordinating their aim in an effort to amount to as much as a trickle. The joy is that people who have pissed themselves (and clumsily splashed the floor, too) tend to lack credibility, so the more of this the more likely it is that George W. Bush will be reelected President of the United States of America by the majority of the citizenry who managed to get potty trained before reaching voting age.
    Which makes it a Happy New Year!

  27. Mithras Avatar

    George W. Bush will be reelected President of the United States of America by the majority of the citizenry who managed to get potty trained before reaching voting age
    Wait, can he be re-elected by a majority if he came in second the last time around? I’m just askin’, you know.

  28. PJF Avatar

    You’re not asking, Mithras, you’re just pissing in the wind. I won’t bother addressing the pedantry of your damp patch, I’ll just suggest that you read the US Constitution and find how presidential elections work.
    Or you could just release a bit more and enjoy the warm sensation down your leg.