Sunday, October 29, 2006
WTF 7
Whiskey...Tango...Foxtrot... VII
Like they say. "They're at it again." In January I had recorded some thoughts about the exchange between Bill O'Reilly and David Letterman...in which I think both sides would agree, the following sums things up accurately. O'Reilly shared some coherent thoughts after accumulating a serviceable knowledge about the given subject, and Letterman responded by freely admitting his ignorance, and being a smartass. Five months later, I had opined grandiloquently about what heap-big trouble we had made for ourselves, now that we had a discourse going in which half of us were irreversibly convinced Letterman had somehow won this thing. I mean, I was just stunned. Like I said, I come from Earth...a place where keeping the argument going, after 'fessing up "I'm not smart enough to debate this with you point by point" is unthinkable. Keeping it going is unthinkable -- calling victory on it is even moreso. Silly me. That's the way things are on Earth. My home. Guess I should be more tolerant of people who come from other places.
Well. Everything that was old is new again. O'Reilly asked Letterman, point-blank, if Letterman wants the United States to win the war in Iraq. Simple question -- Letterman can't answer it -- and woontcha know it, the weird purple-blooded aliens out on Planet "You Win An Argument By Talking Around The Issue," otherwise known as Planet-Blue-State, think -- once again -- Letterman handed O'Reilly his own ass.
Well, very impressive. But if it's not clarified what, exactly, the goal is -- what does it even matter if Letterman "won" by whatever definitions his deranged fans may choose to put in place? Who CARES? Do you want the United States to win, Dave, or don't you?
My thoughtfulness demands an answer before pursuing your argument any further.
Like they say. "They're at it again." In January I had recorded some thoughts about the exchange between Bill O'Reilly and David Letterman...in which I think both sides would agree, the following sums things up accurately. O'Reilly shared some coherent thoughts after accumulating a serviceable knowledge about the given subject, and Letterman responded by freely admitting his ignorance, and being a smartass. Five months later, I had opined grandiloquently about what heap-big trouble we had made for ourselves, now that we had a discourse going in which half of us were irreversibly convinced Letterman had somehow won this thing. I mean, I was just stunned. Like I said, I come from Earth...a place where keeping the argument going, after 'fessing up "I'm not smart enough to debate this with you point by point" is unthinkable. Keeping it going is unthinkable -- calling victory on it is even moreso. Silly me. That's the way things are on Earth. My home. Guess I should be more tolerant of people who come from other places.
Well. Everything that was old is new again. O'Reilly asked Letterman, point-blank, if Letterman wants the United States to win the war in Iraq. Simple question -- Letterman can't answer it -- and woontcha know it, the weird purple-blooded aliens out on Planet "You Win An Argument By Talking Around The Issue," otherwise known as Planet-Blue-State, think -- once again -- Letterman handed O'Reilly his own ass.
Well, very impressive. But if it's not clarified what, exactly, the goal is -- what does it even matter if Letterman "won" by whatever definitions his deranged fans may choose to put in place? Who CARES? Do you want the United States to win, Dave, or don't you?
My thoughtfulness demands an answer before pursuing your argument any further.
# posted by mkfreeberg @ 6:23 PM 
