Couric described soldiers' war-zone deaths as "ironic[]"
During the September 13 edition of the CBS Evening News, anchor Katie Couric stated that the September 10 deaths of Staff Sgt. Yance Gray and Sgt. Omar Mora -- two of the seven U.S. Army soldiers serving in Iraq who co-authored an August 19 New York Times op-ed that expressed skepticism about security gains in Iraq -- was "ironic[]." Couric said: "The group wrote that for Iraqis, quote, 'engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act.' Now, ironically, Gray and Mora were killed along with five other soldiers not in combat, but when their cargo truck overturned during a routine trip in western Baghdad."
Merriam-Webster defines irony in this context as an "incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result." Couric did not explain how the death of two soldiers, who would not have been in Iraq but for the war, was incongruous with a "normal or expected result."
According to a September 13 Associated Press article, Gray and Mora were two of seven U.S. troops killed when their truck ran off an overpass while returning from a raid. The media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting wrote on August 20, 2003:
Some might suggest that using a casualty figure that includes non-combat deaths would portray the war as more deadly and dangerous than it really is. But non-combat fatalities clearly include deaths that are a result of the war; car accidents are often a result of speeding to avoid ambushes, for example, and the heavy battle gear troops are forced to wear contributes to heat-related fatalities. As Editor & Publisher's Greg Mitchell wrote (7/17/03), "Even if killed in a non-hostile action, these soldiers are no less dead, their families no less aggrieved. And it's safe to say that nearly all of these people would still be alive if they were still back in the States."
According to a Media Matters for America search, this is the first time the Evening News has mentioned the soldiers' Times op-ed.
From the September 13 edition of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:
COURIC: And now this sad footnote from Iraq. Two Army paratroopers who recently wrote an article that was critical of the war effort were killed this week. Staff Sergeant Yance Gray and Sergeant Omar Mora were part of a group of seven who authored a piece entitled "The War as We Saw It," published in The New York Times last month. The group wrote that for Iraqis, quote, "engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act." Now, ironically, Gray and Mora were killed along with five other soldiers not in combat, but when their cargo truck overturned during a routine trip in western Baghdad.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
I blame Alanis Morissette.
Fawlty, unfortunately, I think your comment will get closer to the meat of this story than anything else. The sad truth is that most people don't really know what irony is. And many, especially those trying to sound more literate than they are will use it inacurately without being challenged on what they mean. The fact that Couric seems to fall into that camp is really an indictment of the people who have promoted her to this position.
My wife is a high school teacher and this phenomenon drives both of us crazy. She gives her kids extra credit for bringing in clippings of people using 'irony' incorrectly. And of course she uses that dumb song to introduce the topic.
The Orwellian rhetoric that the Bushies have been able to get away with has often made me wonder that if we had a better understanding of the nature of irony, they wouldn't have gotten away with half of it.
LOL Sundog, sounds like your wife is one smart lady.
I'm a lucky dog.
"How ironic that it is going to be hot on the first day of summer," our local newscaster said.
My girlfriend and I always laugh about that. Whenever she uses the word "irony" in a sentence, I say "No, what is ironic is if it is hot on the first day of summer."
The irony is that the two soldiers who recently wrote of Iraqis dying in their normal or routine "banalaties" of life, so too was their death, not in combat, but during a routine trip by truck. The irony, albeit incredibly sad, is there.
I don't believe Couric was minimizing or disrespecting their deaths.
The point you're missing is that there was nothing routine, normal or banal about Gray and Mora's presence in Iraq. They weren't going about their normal lives. And even if you wish to characterize their activities as routine, there's no irony to be found in the deaths of two people who rightfully pointed out that innocent Iraqis are being killed during their daily routines.
I am not suprised you missed it. Of course there is nothing "normal" or "routine" about their presence in Iraq - what a ridiculous statement, when compared to life here....but in the context of a soldier's life in Iraq, their deaths happened not in combat, but in a more normal manner - thus the irony considering their NY Times piece.
If your argumentativeness blinds you to that, then move on - it's quite evident to see what Couric meant.
It's pretty obvious now that you simply don't understand what the word "irony" means.
Tommy, that's a coincidence, not irony. An irony might have been if they had said there was little chance of dying while doing routine things. Not that anyone has said that, I'm just trying to help you understand the word.
A soldier who said, "While combat is dangerous, performing routine, banal chores is quite safe." That guy getting killed performing routine chores could be seen as ironic. That's the opposite of what happened.
Sundog,
I will give you that coincidence is also an appropriate word, and you make a good point. However, I don't think in the context of their piece in the NY Times, ironic is incorrect either.
Would you have been more comfortable if Couric described their deaths as "coincidence"?
Is this purely a semantic argument and the wrong word used, or some level of disrespect from Couric?
I was just addressing the fact that this purely wasn't ironic. This is a common misunderstanding of the word, but I don't think someone in Couric's position should be making it. Irony and Coincidence are closer to being opposites than interchangeable. She was showing that she flat-out doesn't understand the word. Like I said, many people don't. I hear it misused all the time, including by friends of mine. This just really tips the network's hand on what it takes to get promoted to such a high position as a tv 'journalist.' In her position it's really embarrassing.
"Of the three people, the janitor, the cowboy and the journalist, ironically it was the journalist who didn't understand irony." You see, the journalist is in the position of using the english language so you'd think she'd have the best understanding of irony. That's why it would be ironic for her to be the one who doesn't
Actually, not having the soldiers over there dying would probably bring the most comfort.
But short of that, for now I'd take having news readers not try to minimize the deaths of soldiers and the loss for the family back home.
If she was doing that, I would wholeheartedly agree with you, I just don't see it in her comments.
Of course not. Someone who labels the deaths of soldiers as "commonplace" wouldn't see that she's trying to lessen the impact of their deaths by saying they were ironic or to say they were merely the result of a truck crash.
As stated in the article, no deaths over there are commonplace. Chances are, the 3700+ deaths probably wouldn't have occurred at all had we not been in Iraq. And who knows how many countless (because we don't count them) Iraqi "commonplace deaths" wouldn't have occurred.
Just as you don't understand the irony Couric is referring too, you either don't understand my "commonplace" usage, or you intentionally lie to misrepresent.......perhaps you shouldn't opine until you figure out how not to do either.
Your usage was bogus. The country is occupied by an invading force. There is nothing "commonplace" about anything in Iraq. Certainly not for our military. You don't leave your building without your helmet and body armor. When you do leave it, you run to the next building where you're going. Walk, and you're a sniper target. Do you have a sound-activated mortar on your house? One that detects sniper shots and lobs a mortar shell at the location of the shot? Has your buddy been hit in the head by a ricochet off the wall behind him while out for a smoke? (That's all just from one soldier I know, who thankfully is home.)
There is NOTHING commonplace in Iraq, thanks to us.
And an ironic death for these soldiers would be dying while walking to their car after signing their honorable discharge papers in their hometown.
So continue with your dismissive tone and your insults. They're obviously the only way you can make your case.
perhaps you shouldn't opine until you figure out how not to do either.
Despite your constant assurances that people are welcome to differences of opinions, we don't need them. Nor do I need your permission to continue.
Tommy,
You are correct about this. It seems to me that Couric was relating that these soldiers were killed during their daily routine. I'm not sure but if these soldiers were support personnel and had done this type of work daily then they were killed in their daily routine. Seems ironic to me. Military life is full of routine and banal activities, even in combat.
There is no irony in the death of a soldier performing his daily duties. These soldiers wrote about being in constant danger. Their deaths illustrate this fact. This is not irony.
Achrisp, the definition of irony is not a matter of opinion. Unless, apparently, if you don't know the definition of irony. You guys are seriously embarrasing yourself. Seems like you're pretty well insulated from being embarrased because you think everything is just a matter of 'liberals' and 'conservatives' disagreeing on stuff. But you really need to look up the word and think about it. A coincidence is not ironic. I don't know how to be any clearer about it. The fact that a lot of people misuse the word doesn't excuse arguing against the fact just for the sake of arguing. The fact that all the 'conservatives' who have shown up here really don't seem capeable of comprehending a simple concept can't help but seem meaningful. I'm guessing if Maple were here he'd be thrashing you guys for embarrasing Republicans again. So really, if you want to argue your 'side' you should look this word up and think about what it means. That way in the future you won't walk into looking so foolish.
"An outcome or event that is opposite of what might be expected". Please sir, spare me your intellectual elitism you try to project. First of all, your baseless assumption of my political leanings has no bearing on this particualr debate, except in your world.
Now lets' take this definintion above and work with it. These men wrote of Iraqi's dying while engaged in the banal activities of life. One would assume they were trying to say that people are dying while engaged in routine activities in unexpected ways. These men died in a vehicle accident during a routine activity. They didn't die from hostile fire or an IED. The fact is that they expired due to an event that is opposite of what might be expected. An event with similiar circumstances (unexpected during routine activities) of which they wrote about. Therefore it seems to me that it fits the definition that you so commonly refer to. This is a rather trivial argument anyway, it appears we have too much time on our hands.
"The fact is that they expired due to an event that is opposite of what might be expected."
No they didn't. Soldiers have been dying in vehicular accidents from the beginning of the war. Trucks overturn and helicopters crash. It is not unexpected.
"An event with similiar circumstances (unexpected during routine activities) of which they wrote about."
So they write about circumstances similar to their own deaths, and then you say that their deaths were the opposite of what might be expected? That's a total contradiction.
Clams,
My point is that one does not expect to die in a vehicle accident in a war zone. Furthermore, noone doubts that folks do die in non combat related incidents, but the fact remains that in doing so it would seem to be an unexpected type of event as opposed to being killed in a firefight. If you don't understand that you obviously have never been in a combat zone. Therefore, I stand by my assertion that there is in fact irony relating to these fine young mens death as it relates to their writings.
Well, you're just wrong. As I pointed out later in the thread, accounting of non-combat deaths in past wars, including the most recent Gulf War, show that non-combat deaths often exceed combat deaths by a ratio of 2 to 1. Unfortunately, it is not at all that uncommon for soldiers to die in vehicular accidents.
That is absolutely ridiculous and you know it. Your research is flawed sir. I will grant you that in the Gulf War such a figure is accurate, but the 2 to 1 ratio which you indicate as showing non -combat deaths outnumbering combat deaths in past wars is unbelievable. I can't believe that you would use such flawed stats to try to make your point. It is disingenous to say the least. So the reality is that you are wrong. From what I understand non combat deaths accounted for 11 percent of deaths in the first year of the Iraq war and recent studies show non combat deaths are rapidly declining. There were 23 vehicle deaths in the past year suffered by American soldiers in Iraq. I would hardly say that such a demise would be expected in a war zone considering the number of combat related deaths in the past year. Quite frankly I can't believe that you would try to sell that line of crap. You use stats from the first gulf war to equate a 2 to 1 ration to other past American wars. Shame on you. Pitiful.
And do you know why stats for non-combat deaths have declined so sharply? Because they aren't reported as they have been in the past. In fact, I have second-hand evidence of this very thing happening. As I've said before here, my best friend is an active duty Marine. Two Marines in his section were killed when their Humvee overturned in the sand somewhere in Iraq. They were reported as "training fatalities," even though they were off the base and presumably under orders to go from point a to point b, which would make it a non-combat fatality. But, according to my friend, "training fatalities" aren't put into the non-combat fatality tally. This is why I pointed to past wars to illustrate the point that accidental deaths are not unexpected. In past wars we actually kept track of these things. This is why Bill Moyers reported on PBS Now that if non-combat casualties and fatalities were reported for Iraq as they were in past then the overall numbers would be higher. And you're wrong, the stats for wars other than the Gulf War show the same thing. Here's that PBS quote in full:
"Non-combat deaths have been counted by federal government for many of America's wars. In some instances, non-combat fatalities far outstripped combat deaths. For example, in the chaos of the American Civil war, 184,594 died on both sides from combat, 373,458 additional people lost their lives to disease, malnutrition and accident. In the Mexican-American War fully ten times as many soldiers died of non-combat causes, mostly disease, as died in battle. In the first Gulf War, battle deaths were only 148, non-battle deaths in the war theater reached 235 and non-battle non-theater deaths totalled 914. As figures for wounded historically outstrip those killed, some say the missing non-combat wounded numbers may indeed be much higher than the casuality totals now tracked."
Your insults and indignation do nothing for your case, which is...what exactly? Nobody expects a soldier to die in a car accident, therefore Gray and Mora's deaths are ironic? For the umpteenth time, THAT'S NOT IRONY! Even if we accept your premise that there is something unusual or unexpected about non-combat deaths (which there isn't), that still isn't irony. Start with the definition of the word, and rethink your entire argument.
Clams,
I really don't know where to begin with refuting your arguments. Putting the usage of irony aside first is probably the best place ot start. As you may or may not know the correct usage of irony is contraversial and has been for some time. Rigid adherence to Old English usage is a thing of the past. Currently the usage I have argued is widely accepted in many journalistic and literary formats. If you don't like it and want to hold on to the traditional usage, then fine, The fact would remain that if you chose to do so, then indicating that Couric's usage was more a demonstration of coincidence than irony defies the definiton of coincidence.
Now, let's talk about your argument of my being wrong concerning non combat to combat deaths. You wrote "accounting of non combat death in past wars, including the most recent Gulf War, show that non combat death often exceed combat deaths by a ratio of 2 to 1". You utilized statistics from the Gulf War to equate such a ratio with "past wars" That sir, is disingenous. Certainly until WWII most war deaths were a result of disease but as you may or may not know modern medicine has ended that. It is also disingenious to argue your point fom that frame of reference because we live n the modern world and this discussion was based on modern day events as they pertain to non combat related deaths. Just for your reference here is some interesting stats from the modern world i.e. WWII and on. In WWII we had 405,399 deaths of which 113,842 were non combat related. In Korea we had 36,940 deaths of which 3,275 were non combat related. In Vietnam we had 57,337 deaths of which 10,799 were non combat related. Those stats effectivly nullify your argument, sir. Moyers use and your use of the civil war and the Mexican American war then jumping to the Gulf War to show that "in some instances non combat fatalities outstripped combat deaths" is pitiful and deserves no attention.
Moving forward, your assertion that non combat related deaths have decreased because of changes in reporting is ludicrous as well. A more believable reason would be that non combat missions have decreased and most of our forces operate in a support capacity and with the decrease of support missions more soldiers are on the confines of the base. I refuse to believe that non combat related deaths have decreased to their present levels because the armed forces don't count training deaths as non combat deaths. While I'm sure that skews the stats it certainly doesn't account for the dramatic decrease. Furthermore, you wrote "even if we accept the premise that there is something unusual or unexpected abut non combat death (which there isn't)" just shows me again that you are completely unaware of life in a combat zone. I speak from first hand knowledge my friend. It is not a foregone conclusion when you are in combat that you will die, most live. It is expected that if you do die in a war it will be at the hands of enemy action. The craziest thing I seen happen in Vietnam was a guy who survived countless ambushes and firegfights with extraordinary luck only to die in Saigon after getting hit by a truck. Now those things happen in war and although there is danger of anything happening it is highly unusual and unexpected to die by accident rather than combat while at war. Trust me, when you get shot at you expect to die by bullet or mortar shell, etc and not in a car wreck. I am a little suprised at your attempt use obvioulsy transparent statistics to argue a point. I'm calling you on it. You are wrong plain and simple.
OHHHHHHHH CLAAAAAMMMMS? Do I hear crickets chirping and see tumbleweeds rolling through your town? I noticed you had the audacity to respond to Tommy below but not the gall to admit your mistake which I so graciously showed above. Come on little camper!!! How about a little grace in defeat.
Are you five years old? Because if not, I'm really embarrassed for you. How can I even continue this conversation with someone who thinks that a incorrect definition of irony is the one that's widely accepted, and the correct definition is a "thing of the past"? The rest of your post was ust a longwinded way of inadvertently proving that everything I wrote was in fact true. When I say something about "past wars" and then I use statistics from past wars to back that up, that does not qualify as "disingenous" (sic). You seem to have dove head first into a steaming pile of stats in order to avoid confronting the fact that Couric misused the word irony.
As I said, when you begin the debate on the premise that inrony means something that it does not, then there's really nowhere for that debate to go, except downhill.
As far as your macho scolding about how I don't know what it's like in a combat zone, you seem to want it both ways. You want to say that nobody expects to die in an accident and then you give an example of somebody dying in an accident. Your rant is a bit convoluted and bizarre, but I don't even know what point you're trying to make when you write, "It is not a foregone conclusion when you are in combat that you will die, most live." This is called a straw man. You're arguing against a point that nobody is making. You really lost the plot somewhere along the way on this one.
Bottom line, Gray and Mora's deaths are not ironic by any accepted definition of the word. And by characterizing it as such, Couric trivilized their deaths and wrongfully consigned them to an "ironic footnote."
Keep sweet talkin' me, dumpling. I enjoy watching you scramble trying debate something you obviously know nothing about.Talk about bizarre!!!! Wow, are you really that dazed and mired in your own little marijuana haze. The fact of the matter is that you were caught using amazingly transparent statistics to make an invalid point. Deal with it. You tried to make an argument that OFTEN non combat related deaths outnumber combat related deaths 2 to 1. I showed you that in modern times that is not the case, yet you cling to your delusional position that you are right. How can you even attempt to draw a parallel between the civil war and the Iraq war in terms of non combat related deaths? Invalid comparison to say the least, given you are trying to equate deaths from disease such as small pox and malaria to non combat deaths in Iraq. And you call me bizarre? Furthermore, trying to draw a parallel between the first gulf war and Iraq leaves much to be desired as well. We know that the ground war only lasted 100 hundred hours during that time. Certainly you would agree that if that engagment was a drawn affair then combat deaths would in no way be outnumbered by non combat deaths 2 to 1. Your pitiful attempt to try to support your supposition of a 2 to 1 ration by using numbers from wars n the 1800's is bizarre in and of itself. I showed you that in modern times your argument is way off base. I don't know why you can't admit that.
Now then, your further feeble attempt to try to convince me and everyone else that I contradicted myself is DISINGENOUS. You have incessantly tred to make the point that there is nothing unusual or unexpected about non combat death. I gave you an example of how that is not true. My point being, that there is in fact routine and mundane activities in a war zone and to die while engaged in those activites is rather unusual given that one would expect to die in combat related activities. And one more thing, dumpling, your attempt to minimize my arguments by calling me macho is rather dull, even for you. How do you know or how have you arrived at the opinion that non combat related deaths are not unusual or unexpected? I on the other hand, whether you like it or not, have experienced things I hope you never have to. Given that, I feel my opinion on this carries a little more weight than yours . That's not macho, just reality.
As far as the irony argument goes, I made my point. there have been books written about this subject. You just seem to be parroting SUNDOG, who by the way is far more eloquent than yourself. Neither of you can demonstrate how this event in question is coincidence especially if you continue to cling to the supposition that there are no banal activities for our soldiers in Iraq. I see it as situational irony plain and simple. But then again, you showed us your inability to recognize irony in a later posting in this thread. Pot meet kettle, I guess, if that makes you feel better.
I think you take things a little too serious and personal, dumpling. My previous post in which you recently replied was just good humored fun. I'm not five but would love to be given that I am now old and on a one way street to heaven or hell. All I was trying to ask, is that you don't try to pass off stats in a disingenous manner to make a point. I hate it when O'Reilly does it and it does nothing but put you in a similiar light. the reality is that in the past 70 years combat deaths far outnumber non combat deaths. Live with it, deal with it, and move on.
If you have a problem with the statistics and the point that they were used to illustrate, then write a letter to PBS Now, because I quoted them verbatim. You wish to argue that stats from past wars aren't valid in the present, then fine, move on. My point still stands, and it's a very simple one that continues to escape you. Gray and Mora wrote about the dangers found in the "banalities of life" in Iraq and then they were killed when their truck overturned returning from a raid. Accidental deaths are NOT uncommon during wartime, and no matter how you choose to characterize their drive ("routine," "banal," "mundane," etc.), their deaths STILL cannot be considered ironic.
No, I'm calling you out on this. You just don't get it, or you simply refuse to admit you are wrong on this. You have tried to take something Moyers said on PBS and base your argument on it. You then expanded on it with the 2 to 1 ratio crap. Here is the reality Clams. We were discussing non combat related deaths in the context of the Iraq war. You looked and looked until you found something that you thought would support your theory that non combat related deaths were not unusual. You then took those stats and tried to infer that a 2 to 1 ratio is the norm in past wars, thereby solidifying your position. I showed you that was crap, you know it, and now you try and try to divert yourself away from admitting that what you did was disingenious and wrong.
"You have tried to take something Moyers said on PBS and base your argument on it."
My argument is most definitely not based on that Moyers quote. You're just focusing on it because it's easy to dismiss on the (debatable) grounds that statistics from past wars don't hold meaning for this one. I never claimed conditions are in the same in Iraq as they were in the Civil War or even the Gulf War, so that's a straw man. What you can't deny is that there have in fact been many accidental non-combat deaths in this war. I never said they outnumbered the combat deaths in Iraq (another straw man); I only said they weren't uncommon, and that evidence shows that they have been under-reported.
But again, that's not the basis of my argument. For the umpteenth time, even if we were to agree that it is unusual for a soldier to die in a non-combat situation, Mora and Gray's deaths still wouldn't be ironic.
You still don't get it, do you? The reason their deaths are tragically ironic is solely because of the NY Times piece they wrote. I cannot believe you refuse to see something so obvious and elementary. Pitiful.
Lord knows we have tried Tommy. I think what or fine Clammy friend fails to realize is that as MMFA indicates, in this context irony is the "incongruity between the acutal result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result". I guess they are trying to say that there is no compatability between the deaths of these soldiers in routine banal activites and the deaths of the iraqi's they wrote about dying in the same circumstances. If the opposite is true as I think we have easily pointed out then there is irony here in this context. Why they don't understand that there IS compatability between the actual result (soldiers dying in routine activites) of a sequence of events and the expected result (dying while engaged in banal activities as described and written in the Times piece) I don't know. What is funny is that Clams tries and tries to misdirect and divert away from his numerous instances of being disingenous and just flat out wrong in this thread. I hate being wrong just as much as the next guy but I would have just admitted it by now. Pissing contests rarely interest me unless it is against folks like him.
Chris,
Typical Clams, normally he hauls out gems like "Look how many people are telling you this", or "This has been explained to you by so and so....blah, blah". He needs and relies on his possy for backup to shore up weak arguments all the time - he really couldn't survive on a rightwing blog for too long.....that is obvious.
He will ride this out and divert the argument until this discussion is archived, but since he is also famous for linking past posts, I doubt he will do it from these sets of embarrassments from him.
He knows Couric is correct in her "irony" usage here, but he can't admit it. It is sad.
At least you try to be very good at misdirection. As Bill Clinton would say "that dog don't hunt" with me silly goose. You and only you chose to use this stuff from Moyers on the PBS website to respond to Another Amercian in which you used that data to try to indicate that non combat deaths are the norm. You then tried to use the Gulf War numbers as evidence of how in past wars non combat deaths outnumber combat deaths. I have already blown the Gulf War argument you use out of the water. so now that leaves us with the question of which past wars do you refer when you say non combat deaths OFTEN outnumber combat deaths? You disingeniously used the Gulf War to make your 2 to 1 ratio. So, now the fact remains that you really don't know what you are talking about. And for the umteenth time, as MMFA indicated Their belief that the reason Couric's statment was not irony is because she did not show how the soldiers death was not incongruous with the expected outcome. They would be assuming that the expected outcome is death when engaging in routine activites or the expected outcome is death when in combat or in Iraq. That is not the case as I have obvioulsy shown you. One more time, non combat related deaths are not the norm. Therefore, it is irony as based on the Times piece they wrote. You win some and you lose some sport. do you know of any other rebuttal other than strawman!! strawman!!!. It's quite pitiful, I have clearly shown you in no uncertain terms how you have been disingenous and wrong about this. Quite frankly your use of those stats to show how non combat deaths are the norm is O'Reillyesque to say the least. Now tell me again, which past wars were you referring to when you assert that non combat deaths OFTEN outnumber combat deaths? I'm dying to know, no pun intended.....or did I just misuse the word pun.
"You and only you chose to use this stuff from Moyers on the PBS website to respond to Another Amercian in which you used that data to try to indicate that non combat deaths are the norm."
I believe I've repeatedly said that they aren't uncommon, which is different from saying they are the norm, but whatever...as I've pointed out again and again, no matter which way you twist it, it still isn't irony.
"You then tried to use the Gulf War numbers as evidence of how in past wars non combat deaths outnumber combat deaths. I have already blown the Gulf War argument you use out of the water..."
No, you didn't blow it out of the water. The stats back up my statement. In past wars, including the Gulf War, non-combat deaths HAVE outnumbered combat deaths. I don't know how you can possibly argue with that. Again, I didn't say that was the case in the current war. You say that non-combat deaths are unusual, and I pointed out that past wars have seen more non-combat deaths than combat deaths. Therefore it's not unusual. I honestly don't understand what's confusing you about this point.
"...[S]o now that leaves us with the question of which past wars do you refer when you say non combat deaths OFTEN outnumber combat deaths?"
The examples are right above you in the Moyers quote. Again, what exactly is confusing you about this? Are we nitpicking over my use of the word "often"? Fine, strike "often" from the record. Is the word "some" more to your liking? "Some wars"? Surely you can't argue that we haven't seen more non-combat deaths than combat deaths in some wars. And strike "2 to 1" from the record too while we're at it if you're going to use that as a sticking point, even though I never used that term to describe Iraq. I find it incredible that you're accusing me of distracting from the main point here.
As for the rest of your condescending rant, you still don't know what irony means, so rehashing my argument again won't do any good.
You are trying to weasel out of this Clams. You most certainly did say that non combat deaths are the norm in your response to ANOTHER AMERICAN later on in this very thread. If you want to strike "often" from your statements and use "some" then your supposition has no meaning as it relates to the context of this argument or your response to ANOTHER AMERICAN and myself for that matter. Remember when you told me "You wrong" then trotted out your 2 to 1 ratio crap. Why can't you just admit your shortcomings here? As I explained to you before, it is disingenous to use the gulf war to support your argument because it was only a 100 hour war. It really amuses me though. Picture this, You sitting in Bill O'Reilly's chair on "the factor". You start out your talking points memo by saying "some believe that non combat deaths are not unsual and unexpected. Well, the I CLAMS CASINO have investigated this and have uncovered some interesting stats. during the Civil war and the Mexican American war non combat deaths far outweighed combat deaths. In fact in the Gulf War this proved to be true as well. Talking points believes that those who refuse to accept this data are incapabe of understanding anything, even the definition of irony. Talking points also believe that the Gulf War data shows that in fact there is a 2 to 1 ration of non combat to combat deaths which shows that OFTEN in PAST WARS non combat deaths far outweigh combat deaths. This data only proves that non combat deaths are the norm in wars this country has fought. And that's the memo"
Now Clams if you want to use the Civil War and the Mexican American war, along with a 100 hour war to illistrate how non combat deaths are the norm, but conveniently leave out those wars which I previously showed you, which directly contradict your argument then be my guest. If you want to use those wars then you are in fact trying to draw a parallel between those and the one we are fighting now in the context of this disucssion. That is disingenous and you know it. You can't count deaths by disease in the 1800's and use that in the context of this argument to prove that non combat deaths are the norm. You can't count an engagement tht lasted only 100 hours to draw a parallel in which past wars prove non combat deaths are the norm because they outnumber combat deaths. The fact is that the past three major conflicts this country fought, one of which over 1 million men were under arms at one time, shows this is not the norm and as compared to combat deaths is rather miniscule or unusual. It is evident in Iraq as well. So again, your premise is flawed, you are wrong, you are disingenous.
Oh yeah, how about paying attention to the posts dumpling. I have showed you how this event is ironic in the context of Couric's statements. You have yet to address the content of my argument other than to continually say "you dont' know what the definition of irony is" MMFA gives it to us at the beginning of the thread. Just plug in events in the definition and see if there is incongruity or not. Oh, I already did that for ya, again your wrong.
I'm not sure at all how addressing each of your many points one by one qualifies as "weasel[ing] out," particularly when you're the one who has avoided answering direct questions that I've posed to you. I see now that I've allowed you to frame this whole debate, and you've chosen to dwell on peripheral points and quibble about vague words like "often" and vague concepts about where the line between "uncommon" and "common" lies. All the while ignoring the very basic fact that none of that alters my argument in the least.
But just to finally put an end to this, whether the ratio of non-combat to combat deaths is 2 to 1 (as in the Gulf War) or whether it's the opposite (such as in the Iraq War), non-combat deaths are not uncommon. This seems to be the point that you're most concerned with arguing against, so I'll give you one last shot. So, historically speaking, the ratio in the current war is unusual, because the norm (and I concede that I did use that term later in the thread, and I'm going to use it again) that past wars have established is that there is a high ratio of non-combat to combat-related deaths. Many people, such as Bill Moyers, have suggested that this is evidence of the Pentagon cooking the books. Others, such as yourself, argue that the comparison to past wars is invalid, given the nature of this war. Moyers' position is backed up by the fact that the McClatchy report (I'll assume you're familiar with it) doesn't include non-combat fatalities. On the other hand, the ICCC (Iraq Coalition Casualty Count) does include non-combat deaths. You might be interested in taking a look at those.
None of that changes the fact that despite the relatively low ratio in the Iraq War, non-combat deaths are not uncommon. And here's where you quibble over the definition of uncommon, I suppose. In August there were 19 non-combat deaths and 57 combat fatalities. On the other hand, go back to May of '03 and there were 34 non-combat deaths and only 8 combat deaths. So are non-combat deaths uncommon or common? Expected or unexpected? I say they're expected and you cling to the only toehold you have left, which is that they're unexpected. As I've said ad nauseum, either way it still ain't irony, but I'd have a hard time arguing that even 19 out of 76 is uncommon or unexpected. And there's no way you can say that 34 out of 42 is uncommon.
Chrip, I wasn't trying to project anything. I've just been arguing this point with people who continually fall back on something like, "Who's to say what a word really MEANS though?" Just gets a little infuriating. As for your political leanings I wasn't going on that post but from others I thought I remembered. I may have mistaken you for another poster. Apologies if that's the case.
You're just skipping Couric's context to make your point about irony though. She was clearly saying that they had written about Iraqis dying while doing 'routine' things and then IRONICALLY they died while doing something 'routine.' I actually think much of the bigger arguement here is a little off the point. She was very obviously making the common mistake that irony is the same thing as an unfortunate coincidence. Irony isn't even necessarily unfortunate for crissake. It's not a mistake that someone making their living in journalism should be able to make without being called on it. Sorry if that comes off as sounding 'elitist' but it really doesn't say much for us that we get so confused arguing a point because so many of us don't know the meaning of basic words. There's enough dividing us already without losing our common language as well.
Sundog,
I don't see this as skipping Couric's context. This debate is more a question of whether dying in a vehicle accident in a war zone an unexpected event. If you don't feel that it is then your postition would be correct. I on the other hand would opine that these guys were engaging in what was likely a routine part of their job that they did in their everday life. I would guess that a vehicle accident was the farthest thing from their minds driving through Baghdad. I would imagine they were more likely worried about IED's and ambushes. Even in a combat zone one can become relegated to everday mundane activities. In any event, it is my opinion that their deaths by vehicle accident was clearly an unexpected outcome, even in a war zone. so, I clearly see that this was ironic as defined, in relation to their writings.
My apologies as well for my shortness in my last post. It seemed that you were clearly trying to insult my intelligence while calling me a conservative at the same time. I have posted here for a while now and have certainly taken postitions that are in direct opposition to most guys here, but I have also agreed with the liberal views here on many subjects. Throughout my life I have voted for candidates of both parties, but I voted for Johnson, McGovern, Carter (once), Mondale, Dukakis, and Clinton (twice), if that tells you anything. We just disagree here. Our disagreement is not really about the usage or misuse of irony but it seems more about how these guys activities would be defined. Your indication of coincidence in this matter is, to me, clearly an admission that the ingredients for irony does in fact exist. Anyway, I enjoyed this discussion.
Chrisp, I do think that there are two seperate points being discussed here. I think you could take any report talking about non-combat deaths as though they don't count towards the total deaths in the same way and begin the discussion of whether it's appropriate to make that distinction in a war zone.
It's unfortunate to me that it came up in the context of this article because I still have to maintain that Couric misused the word irony and you still don't understand what it means. I apologize for my part in starting the conversation in a confrontational tone. I'm not slamming anyone but Couric and her producers for not knowing what the word means because they are supposed to be professional journalists. I know it seems nit-picky if you don't get my point, but we do come here to learn things.
She said they wrote about how it's dangerous to do routine things and then IRONICALLY they died doing routine things. That isn't irony in any way. It's not sort of irony. It's exactly the opposite of irony. It's a coincidence. They died in the way they said was dangerous. The fact that it's an unfortunate event doesn't make it ironic in any way. Irony doesn't imply anything unfortunate. That's my problem with it. It's a good word that describes an important concept and irresponsible productions like this one feed into people not understanding it. Here is irony. If the story was that the soldiers wrote that while combat was dangerous, routine tasks were safe, then it could be seen as ironic that they were killed doing something routine. In that case what killed them would have been the thing they said was safe. Do you see how that's the opposite of coincidence and the opposite of the actual story line?
It's worth understanding because as you pointed out well, there was no reason for us to be arguing the way we were. If half the people in the discussion don't know what the key word in the story means it makes for a pretty confused discussion. There's enough confrontation as it is.
I think MM could have forseen this problem in posting their article. Considering Couric's misuse of the word is painfully common, it could easily have been predicted that many people would confuse just what they were criticizing the story for. It really is two seperate points in a way.
Sundog,
I am well aware of you point on the usage of the word irony. I am also well aware of contraversy relating to it's usage. I also know that you seem to be misusing the word coincidence as it pertains to this particular example. These soldiers deaths were in no way "a remarkable occurence of events at the same time with no apparent relationship" to Iraqi's dying during banal activities if in fact you accept the notion put forth by many here that there is nothing routne about how these guys died. So if this isn't irony or coincidence the just what is it? Quite a conundrum huh? The fact is that I know what Irony means as it pertains to your accepted usage and I know there are acepted deviations that are widely accepted in not only the journalistic but literary world.
Confusing coincidence with irony is not an accepted deviation in any world. Irony does't 'mean something as it pertains to my accepted usage.' It just means something in the English language. I feel like you're just pulling a Tommy and throwing all kinds of other phrases out there because you feel the worst thing would be facing the fact that you don't understand something. And I'll remind you that pointing out that someone is wrong about something isn't the same as putting them down. Maybe if you could just give me an example of irony I'd feel like we're at least on the same page and you're not just yankin my chain.
What do you want? Do you want accepted usage? Let's be honest with each other here friend, there have been books written about this subject. Irony would be a sprinter losing his feet, a famous photographer losing his sight, or a cop who loves to pull people over for speeding getting a speeding ticket, or a soldier who writes of people dying in everyday activities dying while engaged in an everyday activity. What is coincidental about any of that? Tell me what coincidence is (I defined it for you earlier) and then explain how these soldiers dying in a vehicle accident is coincidence.
Very succinct and to the point, well said.
Why not just compromise here and call it coincidental irony?
Chris, you have made your case.
That is possibly the dumbest thing posted in this thread yet. You can't compromise and call it an "ironic coincidence" because they two words mean completely different things! As the english teacher pointed out later in the thread, something can be a coincidence and something can be ironic, but it can't be both. Ever.
I would say one who can't recognize simple sarcastic satire is pretty dumb, but in your case, it's more expected than anything.
Let it go CC, you have been proven wrong so many times in this thread I am starting to feel sorry for you.
C'mon CC calling them dumb just makes people dig their feet in more. It's clear at least one of these guys is making an effort to talk it through. I think ignoring Tommy when he gets this ludicrous is really the best thing. Can you really tell if he doesn't understand what he's saying or if he's just messin with Chrisp here? If it's the former it's really perverse if it's the latter, you'll clearly never cut through that fog. What you may see is him showing a knowledge of irony in later posts but he'll never admit to learning somenthing here. Many have gone before you, none have penetrated the fog.
Honestly, no, I truly cannot tell when he's trying to be funny and when he's being genuinely dumb. I know he's probably just some 17-year-old who spends his whole shift at Kinko's pretending to fix the computers, but ignoring him doesn't make the all the nonsense any more bearable.
<i>"Irony would be a sprinter losing his feet..."</i>
I'll just stop you right there. That is not irony. It's unfortunate, but it isn't ironic. Go read The Gift of the Magi and get back to us.
Stop yourself, of course it's irony. Just because an event is tragic or unfortunate doesn't mean it isn't also ironic. Irony can very easily have a descpriptor, an adjective preceding it, for clarification and definition.
In the case of the sprinter, it could be sad irony, or tragically ironic, or any appropriate word to convey proper meaning.
Are you going to keep arguing this, haven't you had your head handed to you enough here?
Clams,
It most certainly irony. It's called cosmic irony. It's no different than saying it would be ironic for a painter to lose his sight or a a great composer to lose his hearing. Do you really feel comfortable trying to inform me of this stuff when you are so completely wrong? Everyone can see it but you my friend. I say that as a respectful thing, kinda like telling someone they have toilet paper coming out of their pants at a party or they have a booger hanging. Come on man, give it up. Let's move on. You're wrong so what, it happened to me once in 1st grade (hardy har har). Jesus.
If by "everyone," you mean you and Tommy, then yes, I guess "everyone" can see it except me. A runner losing his legs is no more ironic than Alanis Morrisette's "rain on your wedding day." Like I said, unfortunate but not ironic. And just to briefly address Tommy's completetly fallacious argument about qualifiers--Just because I said this was unfortunate but not ironic, does not mean that I said nothing could be both unfortunate and ironic, and it certainly doesn't mean that something can't be ironic and something else at the same time. Logical fallacy number 2,385 from Tommy.
Anyway, just like there is no ironic twist to rain on your wedding day, there is no ironic twist to a runner losing his legs. Rain ruins your wedding day and losing your legs ruins your career as a runner, but it's not irony. Irony would be if you were a meteorologist and you picked your wedding day because you predicted sun. That's an ironic twist. If you were a runner and you lost your legs after being run over by a UPS truck that was delivering the running shoes you ordered, then that would be ironic.
It's absolutely ridiculous how you guys are high fiving each other and throwing out insults as though you're the ones who are correct here.
Would Irony be a great composer losing his hearing? Yes. Would irony be a great sprinter losing his feet? yes. You are wrong. Quit reading crap off internet sites to arrive at our arguments. the Alanis Morrisette thing, I have no doubt, comes right off some site on Irony you found while scrambling to prove yourself right. Well, heres one for ya, look up cosmic irony and situational irony. Better luck next time sport.
"Would Irony be a great composer losing his hearing?"
No, it wouldn't. It only qualifies as irony if he went deaf as a result of listening to his own music. That's irony. And no, I didn't get the Alanis Morrissette thing "off some website." Is that supposed to invalidate it or something?
Yes it is called cosmis irony. It is the same as a painter losing his sight. That is ironic. Ask your teacher SUNDOG. Heck I even looked it up myself to make sure those examples are excepted forms of irony. As for your Alanis Morrisette lie, I find it remarkable that the exact same argument you tried to use concerning her lyrics are all over the internet. You just lost a ton respect from me. We have debated and gotten a little personal but at least or I thought at least we were being original and honest. Now I know you have feared that you have lost this debate. Shame shame, shame, you lost the game.
What exactly is it that you're accusing of me stealing from the internet? That's a strong accusation and I do take it personally. I haven't lifted a single word from anyone.
Do you know why people all over the internet are harping on Alanis Morissette's examples of irony? Because she doesn't know what the word means and she's using it incorrectly! And she uses it incorrectly in the exact same way that you, Tommy and Katie Couric are using it. "Rain on your wedding day" is NOT ironic! I didn't steal that from anyone; it's a simple fact.
What's worse than you two digging in your heels and refusing to accept the actual definition of the word is that you're arrogantly crowing about being the only ones (well, plus Couric and Morissette) who have it right. You two are know-it-alls who don't really know what you're talking about, and then have the gall to belittle those who actually do. And to accuse me of dishonestly stealing someone else's words is really the final straw here. Back it up or take it back. I stole nothing. My argument is my own, and I''ve taken cues from nobody.
Thank you. A soldier dying in a vehicle accident is a coincidence if that soldier spoke of dying in a vehicle accident. I know they didn't specify a vehicle accident. She said they had written about 'routine' things being dangerous and then they were killed doing something 'routine.' That really isn't a use of irony. So her saying, IRONICALLY they died doing something routine after writing about doing something routine was her making the common mistake that irony is another word for an unfortunate coincidence. The last one you wrote there wasn't an irony as a statement. It doesn't mean there might not be some other way of finding irony in their deaths but her statement didn't contain irony. It's important because these are sensative subjects and using words exactly opposite of their meaning is just going to confuse the issues even more. That's all I'm saying.
I can't see this as anything other than situational irony Sundog. It is not coincidence as defined, I get the feeling you are skirting that point because you still haven't shown how this is coincidence and not ironic. To me if you continue to hold fast to the idea that there is no such thing as routine daily events in soldiers lives over there then how can this tragic event be coincidence? There could be no remarkably same events occuring if one is engaged in routine banal events and the other is not. Were the soldiers engaged in routine events or not? If not how is this coincidence?
Bob Woodruff went over to Iraq as part of a Bush campaign to show that Iraq was getting safer. He suffered a traumatic brain injury when a roadside bomb struck his army transport vehicle in Jaji.
THIS IS IRONY
If the soldiers had written that things were getting better in Iraq and had then been killed, it would be irony. But they didn't
THIS ISN'T IRONY
Let Clams know that a sprinter losing his feet is irony as stated. He doesn't seem to believe anyone but you on this subject. You must be Obi Wan and he is Luke.
You think Maple is a conservative because why? Because he/she said so? That's funny that you would just take that persons word for it without evidence. Show me where that poster has ever defended one conservative principle on these boards. I've never read it.
I agree with your argument here that the definition of the word irony is not negotiable. People in Courics position should not misuse the language if indeed that's what she did. I'm not an English major or an authority on the English language enough to make that call. I'm persuaded by your argument in this case that she misused the word.
I've heard him defend conservative principles, just not the current batch of scoundrels in office who have co-opted the term. How is personally invasive government that spends us into huge deficits 'conservative?' How is throwing away tenets of the Constitution as basic as Habeus Corpus considered 'conservative.'? I get his point.
Sun,
MapleSue - my name for her - will undoubtedly throw a bone to conservatism now and then to try and shore up her credibility, but to no avail. As Bruce so aptly puts it, her condescending nature is patented Sue, her venom seeps out eventually and she ends up in cybersphere - where she waits it out, scours for a new screenname, and slithers back in eventually.
But she's our gal, and life here is not the same without trying to figure out who or what her next incarnation will be. Stick around.
I don't have to throw a bone, and I'm a new poster who came here because I was fed up with the crapola coming from those on the right about Senator Larry Craig. I'm fed up with the nonsense that has passed for conservative political activity for the past decade. Newt Gingrich et al poisoned the well, and I'm fed up with those who continue to drink from that poisoned well.
Because of my disgust with those who have given every conservative a bad name, I like Media Matters because they are pointing out the hypocrisy and the deceit of those people.
Sunshine is a great disinfectant.
Oh, and I'm not Sue. Never was, never will be.
Bruce says that I've never defended one conservative principle on this site that he's read.
The one time I was challenged to defend conservative principles explicitly, here's what I said.
I believe in individual liberty and personal responsibility. That's quite different from the world that George Bush would have us live in. I think that part of personal responsibility is telling the truth about our world, our opponents, and our message. FoxNews doesn't seem to think that way, and neither has the Bush admin. Individual liberty means allowing people to live their lives if their actions don't adversely affect another person. Gay people should be allowed all the freedoms we give to heterosexual people. I have a gay child, and my child is just as much of an adult American as you or I.
I believe in limited government, including limited federal government. Bush has grown the government more than any recent president has. NCLB is a shameful program. The federal government has no business getting involved in that kind of an initiative.
I believe in low taxes, but I don't want my descendants to pay sky-high taxes because of the tax cuts and deficit spending that Bush has led us to.
I believe in a strong national defense that has been reasonably considered and crafted. That's wholly different from what Bush has done. I don't feel safer today than I did 6 years and one day ago. I'm glad that Bush has finally talked to N Korea, and now that he has, they're being reasonable. It only took him 5-6 years to start talking to them. That's a weak national defense. Not everything related to national defense has to have a bullet coming out of it.
I defend conservative principles. Just because Bush et al does not, maybe you're confused about what conservative principles really are. I'm fed up with faux conservatives hijacking my party and lying to make their opponents look worse than they are.
MapleSue is a disingenuous fake who has been banned and changed her names more times than we can count. Her new strategy is to say she's conservative in order to throw off those that know her infamous past, big flop, she's Sue, a partisan liberal who now won't even be honest about that.
Maple's conservative preening is a joke.
That was my impression as well.
No, I don't know maplesue. There has been a different Maplesomething around lately. I think it's a guy. First met him during the whole Tucker Carlson head-bashing thread.
Lame it that's the case though. Don't need to be phony to make good points.
It's just another of Tommy's tedious fallacies. A new poster comes out of the woodwork and Tommy accuses them of being "Sue." I have no idea who Sue is or why it should even matter, but it does give us a great example of the logical fallacy, "Poisoning the Well."
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
No, you missed that her first poke out of the woodwork was an unprovoked post saying that I "suck", so she cooked her own goose and revealed herself as Sue, unmistakeably.
But your aligning with her is expected.......birds of a feather
I didn't align with her at all. I said I have absolutely no clue who she is or what your grudge is with her. And I don't know what your personal attack about "birds of a feather" is even supposed to mean. Other than you once had a habit of deflecting Brabantio's points by baselessly claiming that he was me.
I don't know what you meant when you wrote that my first "poke out of the woodwork" was that. I posted first about the Senator Larry Craig stories a few weeks ago.
On the topic where I said you suck, here's what really happened.
A poster named Scooter said you were not worthy of attention. I don't remember his exact words, and I can't seem to find that post, so maybe the whole thread got deleted. You then said that Scooter was trying to convince other posters to ignore you. Again I don't remember your exact words.
I said that Scooter was not going to influence me, because I had already come to that conclusion in about 2 weeks of reading this site.
It wasn't unprovoked. That's what you tried to say it was back then too, but it wasn't. What I said directly followed the two things that preceded it.
MHK provided the link below. I came here to Media Matters because I have long objected to what many Republicans and right wing pundits have done to the party and the principles I hold dear. I'm not ashamed of my conservative principles, but I am very upset at how many have distorted and ignored those principles to get and keep power.
Here's what Scooter had to say that began the interaction that has led Tommy to say that what I said was unprovoked, but it turns out that what I said wasn't unprovoked at all.
Why does anyone allow this child to hijack conversations. Please let his posts sit quietly.
There you go again, trying to talk your fellow posters into ignoring me...
I have not been influenced by anyone else's opinion about Tommy.
I've been influenced by his own commentary.
I think it sucks. I hate that so many on the right think it's okay to lie, or mislead, or distract from the real point of an argument by erecting strawmen.
I think that true Republicans have good stances on issues. Bush? Nope. Tommy? Nope. Limbaugh? Nope.
You neglected to mention that you already attacked Maple with your patient "Sue" attack multiple times before she said a rude thing back to you and to be quite frank you do "suck" when you attempt to discredit and silence anyone that disagrees with you in this manner.
It's all in the Fox New Peraeus coverage thread in-case you need to refresh your memory.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709110006?offset=0&show=1#comments
I don't really care who Maple is, even if she is Sue her posts are civil and well through out ..... yours on the other hand are rude, smug, and don't even address the other poster point.
Read through the thread, it speaks for itself.
You trotted out this lie on that thread, and you do it again to look even more foolish. I am glad you linked to it, look at the timeline - MapleSue spouts off that I "suck", and my first ever response to her was immediately following that post - at 06:30:36.
All other communication between us happened after that. So before your credibility sinks further with this point, it's all there in black and white.
Sure thing Sunshine. Keep telling yourself everyone else is fool. People can read the thread and decide for themselves.
I think it's true that it was his first comment to me, at least on that subject matter. I'm not great at searching, so I didn't even try to see if he'd replied to any previous comments I'd made. But it wasn't my first appearance on this site, and it wasn't the first time he could have had a chance to read what I said or the first time I'd had a chance to read what he said.
It also wasn't unprovoked what I said, and it also isn't true that I'm Sue. Tommy got one thing right, MHK, but when you balance things out, he apparently gets a lot more wrong. On this thread, even though people tried, he still refused to admit that he was wrong about the meaning and usage of the word "Irony".
Irony often refers to a perceived incongruity between what is expected and what actually occurs, according to Bartleby's. They say it's often confused with coincidence. These soldiers said that they saw lots of non-combat deaths, and they died from a non-combat-related death. There's nothing ironic there because there's no perceived incongruity.
It's MapleTootie. Before that it was Notthatgeorge. Before that it was Nomobush. Before that it was Ellie. Before that it was Sue. I might have missed a few. Of course, this is just a theory among all the right-leaning posters here so feel free to ignore it. We do have evidence which we are unwilling to share (I always loved that one).
Funny how none of them were ever around at the same time, though. And that condescending tone is pretty unmistakable even in print.
That is a funny story. She's like a liberal boogyman? I've said it before that the only way we can really lie to each other in this forum is to pretend to believe things that we don't believe. You can tell by my tenacity that what I believe in is honest debate where you back up your arguments with logic. Emotion might drive it home, but if there's no logic underneath and you have to change subjects or pretend not to understand someting, then you're full of it no matter how RIGHT you pretend to be.
Sundog, you will always get an honest argument from me and I will expect the same in return. Otherwise it's just a waste of time.
Indeed. I'll remember that Bruce. It can save time to know who wants to actually get to the bottom of things and who just wants to muddy the water in order to paint themselves as 'winning' something. I'd rather learn something here than win something.
That's good, when you said you were from Iowa I have some good Iowa jokes for you because I'm from Minnesota. You might have heard these jokes differently ;-) See you around...
Minnesota...that's where my husband grew up & my family had great summer vacations.
Here's a good definition of irony: George Bush calling himself a compassionate conservative.
There is no such thing as a routine truck trip for soldiers in Iraq. Every truck trip is a combat mission. Every truck trip carries the risk of ambush or IED attack. Every truck trip requires armor and heavy weaponry.
And every time someone dies during a truck trip in Iraq, it's more blood on George W. Bush's hands.
Merriam-Webster [link to www.m-w.com] title="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Irony">defines irony in this context as an "incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result."
I thought it was like rain on your wedding day, a free ride when you already paid..
In addition to to the gaffe of referring to the deaths of those two U.S. Soldiers as "ironic", katie couric does a further injustice to them, by clipping off part of their words in the NYT editorial, and taking what they said out of it's context.
ms. couric quotes Sergeants Gray and Mora as writing:
[...that for Iraqis,] "engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act"
The complete sentence, as co-written by Sergeants Gray and Mora, is:
"In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act."
As you can see, ms. couric conveniently clipped off Sergeants Gray and Mora's description of "a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets".
She "clipped" because it has no direct relevance to the soldier's death. The irony was the way they died was how they described Iraqis dying - not from combat, but from more commonplace circumstances.
I think you need to read the definition of irony again.
I think this is just a really good example of the damage done in media by having public figures using this word incorrectly all the time without being corrected. I suspect a very high percentage of US citizens can't tell irony from coincidence.
Then start out on a re-education tour and enlightening the American citizens - nobody is saying they are interchangeable terms. But there is definite irony when you pen a piece about a way a certain people are dying, and then you yourself become victim to the same type of death.......that is by definition irony.
That is not the definition of irony. You clearly can't grasp the concept, even after Sundog gave you a perfect example, so you're probably better off just striking the word from your lexicon.
You are the one who obviously needs to get your hands on a dictionary, so in the meantime I will help you out, because pity is in my heart at the moment - irony is the outcome of events contrary to what was or might have been expected.
Stay with me here, we're almost done - considering these soldiers did not die as a result of combat, which would be an expected outcome if they were, in fact, to die in war, and considering they wrote the NY Times piece they did, and considering they died as a result of an unexpected event, such as a routine truck overturning, which is tragic nonetheless.....Couric was correct in the term ironically.
I hope you got it, because I am out of pity where you're concerned, you're on your own now.
Trucks overturning are routine?
Read Couric's statements, No. Their truck trip was routine, obviously their deaths were not, but the irony is that were on a routine trip, not a combat mission, and their truck overturned.
Apparently you and others are having trouble with the distinction.
Had their truck overturned during a combat mission?
That would be an entirely different scenario and there would be irony usage uproar.
...there would be NO irony usage uproar.
I just noticed this comment and if I'm reading you correctly, then I think it's a clue to where you're going wrong here. If they had died in combat, then Couric probably wouldn't have used the word "ironic," but if she had she still would have been using it incorrectly, and there still would have been an uproar about it. You see, it doesn't matter if they died in an overturned truck or in a firefight. Neither is ironic.
Yikes Tommy, you keep repeating a coincidence and saying it's an irony. I know you think I'm out to get ya, but I'm really trying to help here. It's pretty ironic that you'd be the one getting sarcastic making this argument. Don't get mad. Think about that sentence. Do you see how that's the opposite of a coincidence?
I don't think our good cop/bad cop routine is working. Tommy has dug in his heels and will refuse to understand the concept of irony to the bitter end. All the while condescending to us by saying that we're the ones who are missing the irony in the deaths of Mora and Gray.
This irony thing is just really a pet peeve of mine. I'm genuinely trying to help him. He jokes about a crusade but it's not far from the truth. If I had my way, you'd have to show that you understood this concept before you could get your high school diploma. The Bushies ability to pass off their fallacies as legitimate arguments shows we are seriously lacking in this regard. People think I'm just being sardonic but I do believe if our education system addressed basic concepts like this better, we never would have had a President Bush.
"The Bushies ability to pass off their fallacies as legitimate arguments shows we are seriously lacking in this regard."
Logic and debate classes should be required for all. These fallacies are knowingly employed by so many voices on the right (Hannity, Rush, et. al.), and then ignorantly repeated by their minions as if they're valid points of view. We've seen this time and time again here.
In fact, Tommy once wrote, "Logical fallacy is liberal rhetoric doublespeak trotted out here on occasion when either 1) no details or backup can be provided, or 2) there is no coherent argument."
If those on the other side of the debate can't even be bothered with the rules of logic, or word definitions, then the debate is dead before it's even begun.
Indeed, the problem is that there has been no debate for a long time. Witness the TV 'debate' where ALL of the post debate analysis is about who appears to have won. There is basically no discussion of the validity of the points they made. Because by god that would show BIAS! We're getting dumber and the righties are counting on it and helping it.
Think of the way that when you point this out the righties respond by saying that 'liberals' just think Americans are dumb. Therefore you should vote for Republicans. That in itself is a fallacy designed simply for scoring emotional points with people who aint thinking too clearly. This is all part of why I think the 'irony' debate is actually close to the bone.
Look Sundog, We disagree, I think irony is a perfectly appropriate term, you do not, that is fine.
What's more ironic is so many rabid liberals here, excluding yourself because you actually made a good point earlier on the "coincidence" comparison, are running around in circles arguing with me on this one, and have yet to make their case......and that's pretty routine for many of them, ironically.
"Look Sundog, We disagree, I think irony is a perfectly appropriate term, you do not, that is fine."
No, it's not fine. You can't "disagree" with the definition of a word. You either understand it or you don't. And you very clearly don't. Don't attempt to turn this into a matter of opinion. It's not. You are very simply and very plainly wrong.
But kudos to Sundog for being as polite as is humanly possible and for genuinely attempting to educate you. Too bad it fell no deaf ears.
Ouch, "No, it's not fine".........ooh, snap!
Gather your necessary forces here and just do a group scolding....altogether now "Tommy is wrong".....feel better?
So by resorting to a rebuttal that consists of, "...ooh, snap!" I'll assume that you've conceded whatever point you were originally trying to make.
What I'm saying is if it's so imporant for you to think you're right here, then who I am to burst your little fantasy bubble where your little hollow victory is concerned? Just because reality flies in the face of it, you cling to it anyway, ok Sport?
I hope your do realize that your message to CC pretty much describes you to a T.
Is this a demonstration of the good will and civility that other people on MMFA are suppose to use when having a conversation or is this style of discourse reserved for only people that disagree with you?
Ouch, that was good. You have made a clear argument as to how these poor soldiers deaths were in fact ironic. I rarely agree with you Tommy, but here you are clearly right.
Thanks Chris, I also responded to CC in a later post on why I believe he clings to the notion that irony is incorrect.
I cling to nothing but my Oxford dictionary.
Does it say "an outcome or event that is opposite of what might be expected". If so then think about this debate.............Checkmate my friend.
Checkmate? A little fuzzy on the rules of chess too, are we? See my response to you on the previous page.
CC, you've been buried, (in the sand), best to walk away now.
"a little fuzzy on the rules of chess too, are we?" Uhhhh, no. Your response on the previous page made no sense as you clearly misunderstood my posting. Therefore, Checkmate!
FEEL BETTER?
No, I want you down for 50 pushups on my count. Say Uncle during each pushup.
I'm shocked and pleased to see a Conservative here who is honest enough to conceed on something. That's rare breed indeed.
Thank You Very Much.
Sam I Am
You have a right to your opinions! But ...
none of us has a right to our own falsified facts. New words are coined all the time but definitions remain pretty much the same over time.
I hope that somewhere a high school debate teacher and english teacher have found this thread and are hurriedly making copies of this argument to use in their classes. Not only is this thoroughly entertaining, but Tommy's insistence that blue can also mean red is absolutely priceless.
I think part of the problem is that two points are being argued at once. That's why I was just sticking to what irony means and the fact that Couric misused it. But really, you can't just pass it off as my opinion vs. your opinon in terms of the meaning of the word. It really does have a specific meaning. The fact that it is commonly misused doesn't make that use correct in any way. Couric's misuse of the word is a big part of what made this such an atrocious piece of 'journalism.' How the press tries to understate the tragedy being wrought in Iraq is another matter. It's just hard to get onto that conversation if we can't even agree that black is black and white is white.
Cool. But we disagree that Couric used the term incorrectly. You say she did, I say she did not. If you hold one opinion, I can live with that. I don't share it however.
And this feeble attempt by others to confuse fact with opinion rears it's ugly head again, some just can't get it, or won't.......too bad for them.
Sorry, can't agree but thanks for your thoughtful posts.
"And this feeble attempt by others to confuse fact with opinion rears it's ugly head again, some just can't get it, or won't.......too bad for them."
Talk about projecting. Words have established definitions. You cannot counter that fact with an opinion. Couric misused the word ironic. You cannot say that, in your opinion, she used it properly, when the facts show that she did not. This is very basic stuff, and until you're able to wrap your mind around it, all debate with you only serves to provide real world examples of various logical fallacies and invalid debate tactics.
If I said "you are a small insignificant man with no credibility", would that be a fact or just my opinion? Because, as you say, words have established definitions and each word a distinct meaning.
In m opinion, Couric used the word correctly, you disagree - and that's OK, deal with it.
And here you've helpfully provided us with examples of four different logical fallacies in the span of three short sentences. Ad hominem personal attack, appeal to ridicule, false analogy, and argument from uninformed opinion. Thanks for underlining my point.
Again Tommy, that's a coincidence. I'm honestly not trying to be combative here but you're simply not understanding the word. I've said already, it's misused all the time so, no biggie if you haven't gotten it yet. But you should know that definitely by definition is not irony.
Hell, just have Tommy read the article again.
Nothing "commonplace" about being aboard a troop truck in Iraq.
Clueless. Read it again yourself. I specifically said commonplace in the context of Iraq, a war torn country. Perhaps you are your fellow definition instructors need to look up "context".
Again with the insults. Just can't help yourself.
There are no commonplace deaths in Iraq. You introduced the concept, now you pretend you didn't.
And as I pointed out before, even if one were to accept your definition of Gray and Mora's drive as "normal," that still doesn't fit the definition of irony.
If the two soldiers came home, and died in a car crash on the way on their way to the grocery store... that might be irony.
Or if they were in Iraq and they got killed by an escaped gorilla... that might be irony.
It's so nice to see Tommy being polite to other posters. I especially love it when he's the bigger person and admits when he's wrong.
The reality, Tommy, is that their is a clear misunderstanding of military life by some. There is routine and banal activities one establishes based on ones specified job. for these poor men it was obviously their "routine truck" drive they were taking on this particular day. If one conceeds that their is coincidence in this scenario then it seems to me they are in fact conceeding that the elements for the irony we are speaking of exists. In that vain, if they died while engaged in the banal activities of daily life they wrote that Iraqi's experience then their deaths by this circumstance are in fact ironic.
Well stated. Many unfairly want to paint the picture of Iraq as far worse than it actually is, which admittedly is hardly eutopia, but the other extreme is inaccurate too. Military personnel are engaged in day to day activities all the time, if one should tragically die during such activities, this in no way diminishes their service, that is the point.
TOMMY, when you have been to Iraq, you may then be qualified to comment on whether the situation there is being "unfairly" painted as "far worse than it actually is". Hey, it's bad enough, "Sport"!
And there was nothing "routine" or "normal" about how Sgts Mora and Gray died.
"According to a September 13 Associated Press [link to news.aol.com] title="http://news.aol.com/story/_a/military-identifies-82nd-airborne/n20070913132509990003">article, Gray and Mora were two of seven U.S. troops killed when their truck ran off an overpass while returning from a raid..."
There's nothing "routine" about how any trooper dies in Iraq. They're all in combat, all their deaths are combat deaths, they're all heroes, and none of them should be there!
Coincidence and irony are not synonyms. That's really all that needs to be said about your post.
Yea, but what does synonym really MEAN anyway? You say it means words have the same meaning, but what if lots of other people don't think that? I mean, who's to say? You're just not being Fair and Balanced.
Both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are strong advocates of WAR as a tool of "problem solving", and are hugely in favor of continuing our military presence in Iraq.
IRONICALLY, both men had the opportunity to serve in the military in combat during the VietNam era, and both chose a path that would keep them out of combat and out of harm's way.
----------
Is this a proper use of "irony"?
----------
Here's another: As a newspaper writer, I just wrote a feature article about flat tires and how to deal with them, and when I got to the parking lot, MY OWN TIRE WAS FLAT. Boy, talk about irony.
And that's just like THIS story, isn't it? Nope, not really. Having a flat tire for ME is unusual, unexpected (although it's a coincidence that I'd just finished writing about the topic).
If I'd just written about dying while performing a banal duty, and then died performing a banal duty, would that be IRONIC? Nope. It would just underscore what I'd written about, providing yet another example. No irony there.
Tex, actually your first example there really wasn't ironic. Just going out to your car and having a flat tire is unfortunate and unexpected by not in any way by itself ironic. Having been on the subject of flat tires was a coincidence but again, in no way ironic. It would have been ironic if you had just gotten done doing a story about how everyone but you had the worst tires. "Tex was just telling me that my tires sucked and his were the most reliable on the planet. And then the beautiful irony was, we get to the parking lot and HIS tires were the flat ones." Do you see what makes this ironic? The result of your tires being the flat ones is the opposite of the expectations you built with your story. It has nothing to do with being unfortunate. Sorry to keep hashing this, but it's a useful word when you get it. People say 'ironic' all the time when they just mean something surprising. But it's a much more specific device than that. It's more like the opposite of a coincidence than anything.
I think his first example was meant as sarcasm. How ironic is it that you wouldn't pick up on that?
Thanks for your helpful input there Jimmy. This has sure been an easy discussion for the past two days talking to people who honestly really don't know what a coincidence is let alone irony. And then they get mad at you for 'putting on airs' and trying to politely explain it. Seen the same mistake made over and over so it was pretty easy to think Tex here was repeating it. No offense intended to Tex that's for sure.
Are you mad? (insert english accent) I have given you the definition of coincidence and yet you still post to others in veiled reference to me that I don't know what the definition is. The reality is that, as I have pointed out numerous times, your calling this event coincidence is not accurate. You have on more than one occassion assosicated yourself with the opinion that these soldiers actions on that day were not routine. Why can't you admit you are wrong and learn something, as you accuse others of being unable to do.
Since the start, the media has done what they can to try to understate the casualties in Iraq. They make a clear point when people die from 'non-combat' as though you can really define that in a combat zone armed to the teeth. It's really sick and it dishonors the troops they're always 'supporting' so much.
One of the most obvious examples is the way every time a helicoptor goes down they point out that it may have been 'mechanical failure.' As though those guys would have gone down just tooling around in Nevada the same way. I've even seen them do this with crashes that are later reported to have been directly the result of enemy fire. But by then, it's just a footnote. A casual observer would think that we've lost almost no aircraft as a result of 'war related activities.' Sick sick stuff.
Sun, it is too bad that this important point you are making is lost due to all the silly "noise" about the proper and pure use of a word. Do you really think gramatical purity was the focus MMFA had in mind when they posted this piece. Hopefully, the conversation will get on track and everyone can get over Couric's lack of obedience to proper usage.
But isn't Couric's incorrect and flippant use of the word ironic evidence of that larger point that Sundog made above? It isn't just grammatical nitpicking that we're on about here.
Do you really think gramatical purity was the focus MMFA had in mind when they posted this piece.
LostLogic,
I believe a great part of the "focus" by MMFA was indeed "grammatical purity" , due to the fact they included a definition of the word Irony from Merriam-Webster.
That aside what is the point of this thread? I'm not sure why Couric reporting on the tragic deaths of 2 soldiers...whether ironic or coincidence [not gonna join that argument--How about a tragic twist of fate?] ] is being featured here?
Is this Conservative MIS-information? Does this further a Conservative agenda? Other than arguing about using the word ironic here, I'm not sure what this is supposed to be about?
I'm sure you, or someone else will politely tell me.
Conservatives are ignorant fools who don't know the basic meaning of words. Except Couric isn't conservative. So now I'm lost.
"So now I'm lost."
Finally some clarity. Thank you.
Jeter, I gotta agree.
IMO, Katie said the soldiers wrote about how doing "normal" or "trivial" things in day to day life for Iraqis had become like walking through a field full of land mines. By the same token she said these soldiers died not while fighting in combat which many would assume to be the cause of their deaths but on a "routine" trip.
Day to day life for Iraqis is like walking through landmines, just as day to day "normal" life for our soldiers is. The deaths of these soldiers only underlines that fact. There's no irony to be found in it at all. And by calling it ironic, Couric not only displays her ignorance, but she unintentionally trivializes the event that led to their deaths. They were on a "routine" drive? First of all, we don't know all the circumstances surrounding the accident, so Couric's use of the word "routine" is either conjecture or it's simply parrotting the military report. Secondly, they most likely weren't out on a sunday drive, so they were killed in the line of duty. They weren't going to the movies. They were soldiers performing military duties.
The agenda you are promoting is very clear. You want to push the narrative that life in Iraq is hell on earth for everyone, that death is nearly imminent for all and there is no "irony" to any death because then you would have to acknowledge that people do die of unexpected events, such as a truck crash in this case......and that would force you to give a tiny inch to the Bush argument that life is stabilizing in certain areas, and your partisan ideological stiffness cannot allow that........hence you reject the proper use of the word "irony" in this case.
Nice try Clams, and MMFA - but Couric is correct, these heroic soldier's sad deaths are not only tragic, but the way they died was indeed ironic considering it was not in combat, but during a "routine" truck trip.
Your twisting of all the rules of logic is becoming difficult to follow, so let's boil it down to its essence. Mora and Gray wrote about the dangers inherent in the "banalities" of everyday life in Iraq. They were writing about Iraqi civilians, but they might as well have been writing about themselves too. Their deaths in a truck accident underline this fact.
The fact is that our soldiers are always in danger. Sometimes they risk being killed by a sniper or an IED, and sometimes they risk being killed by an overturned truck or in a helicopter crash.
You and Katie Couric think this is irony, but you and Couric clearly don't understand the definition of the word. Again, Mora and Gray wrote about the dangers of day to day life in Iraq, and then they were killed in a truck accident. In no way is that ironic.
There you go again! Now you pontificate about "ideological stiffness" - you, who find it so easy to toss out ad hominem insults like "rabid liberal"! Now, I'll concede that some of the non-conservative posters here can get rather frothy at times, but I really doubt that even the stiffest of them is actually infected with the rabies virus. If you want to see a genuinely literal-minded ideologue, "Sport", just look in a mirror.
Hi Pearl, I think one of the problems is that there isn't much difference between combat and non-combat classifications especially in this situation. These guys weren't out for a Sunday drive...they were sent to a war zone and they were navigating through that war zone when they were killed. I have read much about how they have to drive in order to avoid becoming targets and it is by no means routine or normal. I don't think the problem was Courics gramamtical use of the word but rather her belief that it was in fact ironic (unexpected) and the impression that it was something less then it actually was...according to Couric it was a footnote...I have a big problem with that description. I think this thread was taken astray but the silly grammar argument and the real focus got lost. IMHO
But again, it's not just a silly grammar argument. Couric's misuse of the word, whether intentional or not, is evidence of the "larger point" that you're making.
Clams, no it is not her use of the word proper or improper it is the fact that by definition of the word it is not true. Under your argument she wasn't pushing the rightwing agenda that life is normal in I raq and there for this was just a common car accident but rather simply improperly used a word. I disagree with Couric's statements and information...I could careless if her usage wasn't pure. I disgaree with the framework she creates with these statements and the lack of understanding of the dangers that exist. No drive is normal or routine they must actively avoid becoming a target...which often ends tragically. ANd contrary to what Tommy said...yes every day is a struggle to stay alive in Iraq.
"No drive is normal"..........do you have evidence of this? That there is no normalcy for anyone who gets behind the wheel in Iraq, anywhere, anytime?
Tommy, if you watch the reports of the imbeds and the specials about life for the soldiers over in Iraq this is something they speak of often and they discuss the manuvers they take to avoid the dangers such as driving at high speeds...which often results in flips. You are truly delusional if you think any day in Iraq is normal for anyone and that there is ever a time when danger is not present. Are you truly that ignorant of the situation in this war zone. Apparently, you fell for the "just a stroll through a market place like anywhere in the US" crap. I wouldn't have expected you to be so gullible.
Lost,
For you to refuse to accept that the military engage in routine operations where death in that particular specificity is unexpected is delusional.
Obviously your agenda isn't the absolute truth as it is in Iraq currently, but rather to insult me and spin the war to it's worst possible degree for political advantage. Have at it. Sorry, I don't play that game.
Tommy, I think she's talking about US soldiers and not drive for them is ever "normal" even in the Green Zone.
Lost,
The real agenda behind this whole semantic argument is just what you've laid out. MMFA wants to paint Iraq as an unparalleled war zone that offers no safe haven anywhere within it's borders, that it's nothing but dodging death at every turn, for everyone. This is the narrative many promote, even if in reality there are areas where such a description is not accurate, where perhaps the "surge" is having a positive effect. I am no proponent of this war and have said so here many times, but to paint Iraq exclusively this way is unfair.
Therefore, to say that any death is ironic, one would have to disassociate themselves with that notion, and admit that people are dying in "normal" or non-combative ways, such as these soldiers did - and the people they spoke of in their NY Times piece. So, I believe irony is appropriate in this case, and properly used by Couric.
Tommy, you accuratley illustrate why it was important for MMFA to highlight this piece because it is true that everyday is a struggle to live and there is no secure area and these deaths were not unexpected but rather the direct result of trying to stay alive in this war zone. No one is safe...that is the point so there is nothing ironic about their deaths and to try and portray it is misinformation in my opinion. You prove the point that this view that things are getting back to normal in Iraq is being pushed by the media...and this agenda is a rightwing fabrication designed to pacify the american people and their ddisgust with how things are going in Iraq.
Lost, I never said things were getting back to normal, please don't put your words in my "posts".....what I said was that there are activities and "routine" exercises that the military engages in that are not combat specific, would you not agree with that? If in fact a soldier dies during an event which should not result in death due to it's "routineness" , that it was unexpected - and considering what these soldiers wrote, then their deaths are indeed ironic.
This verbage doesn't detract from their service or their honor by any means, it's merely a descriptor of the way they died, and the irony therein.
Tommy, what I wouldn't agree with is that there is ever a time for the men and women serving in Iraq when death is not expected. You show a marked lack of understanding of what the situation in Iraq is like for those serving in country. The very dangerous situation means there are no routine maneuvers or drives for our men and women serving in Iraq.
"Therefore, to say that any death is ironic, one would have to disassociate themselves with that notion...
Actually, you'd only have to disassociate yourself from the actual definition of the word ironic.
"...and admit that people are dying in "normal" or non-combative ways, such as these soldiers did - and the people they spoke of in their NY Times piece."
Who is arguing that people aren't dying in "non-combative ways"? You're just throwing up a straw man for good measure now? Nobody has said that soldiers don't die in accidents.
CC, I think you're fishing for marlin in a dried up rain barrel here. I seriously tried. I'm afraid that for some here the best intentions of trying to share knowledge will always come across as an accusation of someone just being WRONG. How dare anyone imply that they know something I don't know?!? What are you an elitist?!? Now I must try to WIN an argument with you! Bleah. I think the Rovian strategy of simply never adimitting any mistake is seeping deeply into our psyche to the point that we flat-out can't talk to each other in a lot of cases. If it takes not understanding something to maintain an arguement you've started there are plenty of folks who feel the best course is to continue to not understand.
Sun,
As an English teacher who just checked this thread after work and now feels like banging my head on my desk, I want to thank you for your dogged work to clearly expain irony, especially in the face of such amazing stubbornness (Tommy - can't you even once consider the points Sun is making?). You explained it well in each of the many, many posts you've quite patiently typed out.
Of course, Tommy has actually done a decent job of ILLUSTRATING irony by complaining about liberal posters refusing to listen or be open to others' ideas while consistently refusing to concede your clearly logical and coherent points. However, once he stated, "I will give you that coincidence is also an appropriate word" on the first page, it became obvious that he couldn't distinguish between two words that ARE NOT SYNONYMS, which is of course your point - when something is coincidental, it isn't ironic, and when something is ironic, it isn't coincidental. EVER.
Sorry about your head. This stuff should be funny if it wasn't so widespread. One guy was actually making the point that if so many people think it means coincidence then the meaning of the word must be changing. Far out.
Did you read the study recently that showed the differences of how 'liberal' and 'conservative' brains work? Clearly the mistake about irony isn't limited to conservatives, but you have to wonder about someone who could buy the stuff coming from Rove/Bush. Just a guess, but I'm thinking a very high percentage of the 28% would have a very tough time identifying irony. Remember when he asked, "Is our children learning?" Clearly it's in the best interests of his faction that they don't.
What do you think of the idea of requiring an understanding of irony before getting a high school diploma? Asking just too much of the youth? Seems like a simple thing like that might change a lot of confusion in the world. I can't say exactly why learning that one concept might help so much, but I'm thinking Orwell could explain it.
Here's to the teachers. Good luck.
Clearly I'm enjoying the word clearly tonight. We just gave our second daughter the middle name of Claire because we like the meaning.
Tommy, you might want to read this interview between Chris Matthews and Bobby Gosh, Time Magazine Baghdad Bureau Chief to find out about life in Iraq. It was an interesting and informative interview. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20823133/
Lost, thanks. I was going to let Clams know I got his point after reading his post and your post to Jeter. The bit deal about "ironic" took me off course. You are absolutely right that their is no routine trip anywhere (even the Green Zone) in Iraq. We should never lose sight of this.
Hi Jeter (-: I will admit when I first read the piece I thought you gota be kidding me--how petty can you be and I was all ready to join the WITH patrol. But I respect MMFA and the work they are doing so I read the piece again...honestly I read it several times and realized what the point they seemed to be making had to do with not wheter Couric used the word properly but the fact that she didn't get that it wasn't unexpected it is expected in the dangerous and unstable war zone that is Iraq contrary to attempts to make it seem like no different then a stroll through the market place here in the US . Further MMFA provided a passage about how the lines are blurred between combat and non-combat deaths because even the non-combat deaths are a result of the war. I think the point they are trying to make and one sundog accuratley wrote about in his post is the attempts to minimize these deaths as less then a result of the caos and danger in this war zone. So I don't think it was about the proper use of the word ironi but rather that it really wasn't ironic at all. I also was put off by Couric labeling it a footnote...it wasn't a footnote...it was a tragic loss and it is worthy of news coverage as is all those who have died or wounded in this war. It is sad when we start taking it as no big deal and just a footnote...barely worth mentioning really. Sorry if I seemed to stray...I hope this ansered your question. Was I polite enough too (-: (-;
Was I polite enough too (-: (-;
LostLogic, you always are :-) As was Pearlene, but you both are rarely, if ever, impolite...
Boy I almost missed both your responses/posts [things get so clutered here at times]
I believe Couric probably labeled this as "routine" because it wasn't combat-related or didn't occur during a hostile action. From what I gather it was a roll-over accident.
A roll-over in Iraq as opposed to here in the States are both "accidents" but of course one venue is in a war-zone, the other isn't.
I don't believe Couric was minimizing the soldiers deaths, just simply pointing out the tragic twist of fate these men suffered in perishing in what could be defined as "routine" situation. While this situation occured because of war, it was not the result of any specific hostile action of the war.
Hi Jeter, My point is that it is in fact due to actions in the war. The conditions on the ground are such that they do not drive as we do here on the highways. They are traveling at high speeds in order to prevent sniper fire and RPG's. They are distracted by constantly being on guard against possible threats. They are exhausted. There is nothing they do in Iraq that doesn't contain an element of risk including sitting down to eat. I do not think there is anything routine about driving through the streets of Iraq. I really was turned off by the tone of Couric's piece. The "footnote" comment really bothered me. And I think she was implying that they were just in an accident that you or I would get in...I don't know about you but I don't drive through the streets trying to invade RPG's, IED's or sniper fire. So I stand by my opinion that there is nothing routine about life in Iraq for a US soldier. They are at risk every minute of every day.
"I believe Couric probably labeled this as 'routine' because it wasn't combat-related or didn't occur during a hostile action."
- It wasn't "combat-related"? What is it about "returning from a raid" that is so difficult to grasp?
Logic, maybe you've read some of these other posts so I don't have to repeat everything, but I don't think it's trivial at all. The way she used the word is not a fine point. Irony is a very basic concept and I've long felt that a lack of understanding of irony was almost a prerequisite of buying into the Orwellian rhetoric of Rove/Bush. It's not that everyone who doesn't understand the concept buys into Bush, but most who buy into Bush don't understand the concept. See what I mean?
It's also important in understanding just how this story came out and what she was actually implying. It's a common mistake that she makes but unforgiveable coming from a 'journalist' of her stature. People joke about the Alanis Morrisette song but it's actually a good example. Couric is talking about an unfortunate coincidence and calling it ironic. But a coincidence is never ironic. To me she (and her network) are taking part in the great dumbing down that has allowed Bush and his twisted crew to mess things up as bad as they have. It wouldn't have become such a big point but there have been people here unwilling to even try to understand the word if it means admitting that they didn't understand it before. That level of blind stubborness is very telling I believe.
Sun, I completley understand the passion of a pet peeve. This is obviously one of yours. I think you provided the facts on proper usage and gave us all a lesson on proper use of an often misused word and I think the argument took on a life of its own. I can't say I share your belief in the importance of the use of irony in world affairs. It wasn't that important to me in the face of what was actually being said and the misinformation about life in Iraq being fostered by Couric's statement. I did think the argument with Tommy was silly (as many usually end up) and I thought you were basically banging your head against a brick wall and the impression being left to those reading the thread that the improper usage was the focus of the conservative misinforamtion/agenda being promoted here. I know when I first read the thread it was my initial impression and another poster also said the issue had her missing what this was really about. Hope I didn't offend you but I assure you some of my pet peeves may not be too high on your list either (-:
Definitely not offended LL. In a way this is why I put such a dig on Tommy last week. If you try to actually discuss something with him the thread is almost sure to become a farce. I was convinced he was doing it on purpose because it seemed so perverse and no one could be that dense. That's why I laid into him. Then I became not so sure of how much he's doing it on purpose. Then I stopped caring. Definitely not worth laying into people on the thread. No matter how right you are it just gets ugly, chases new potential MMFA heads away and achieves exactly what I suspected him of doing on purpose. Now that's a bit of irony eh?
I did post what I thought about how the media covers the war in regards to 'softening' it. It is a big deal. It is hard to really discuss something though when it's clear about half the people in the discussion don't understand one of the main words being used. Anyway, nuf said on that. Defintitely not offended by anything you've said.
"Irony is wasted on the stupid". That is a quote, not directed at anyone in particular.
Here's a link that might be helpful to nobody in particular:
[link to www.bbc.co.uk]
Come on Clams.
You linked us to a site in the UK.
What the hell do the British know about the English language?
That is a good link, Clams.
Is it ironic that Couric brings up this op-ed after the guys die but not before? Nah. It's just shoddy journalism.
From the link:
Irony can also be unconscious. It is unlikely that George W Bush was being intentionally ironic when he said that he would not recognise the result of the Zimbabwean presidential election, since the process had been 'flawed'.
That's cute JJ, but missing the irony is far worse.
To you and the others, in particular.
;)
Shoo fly.
You're not as think as you smart you are, Tommy.
Ironic is Couric becoming the darling of the right wing for her report on going to Iraq after they excouriated her for going to Iraq.
The darling of the right? Ye gads, do you think she'll take on that cadaverous, dominatrix look?
She is lookin' a bit gaunt, Sundog. I think maybe she just isn't that talented in the realm of hard news though. Just as Jeter mentioned about the Nyguen chick in an earlier thread. (See J2, I gave you some propers).
Indeed. Hard news is too hard. Remember that phrase, 'Promoted to his/her level of incompetance?' I think they definitely went a bridge too far with this one.
My bet is she starts doing the nooze dressed in a black coctail dress. Every single stinking time...
The ubiquitous black cocktail dress ala Coultergeist? Geeze, does she have to smell of Jack Daniels and ciggys too? We'll hope it doesn't get to that.
It seems to me there are a few here who are semantic nitpickers as long as it suits their cause. If one decides to take the narrow view of irony, as does MMFA, then they can feel justified in ganging up on one of their own, Couric.
If one takes her statements in context, (that being the soldiers were not in combat,) one can see her choice of the word does fit.
Seeing how Couric has made it clear in the past that she is liberal, I find it ironic that progressives here are lambasting Couric, while a conservative is defending her. But then, maybe I'm misconstruing the word myself. :-)
It's total irony that a grad A nitpicker is coming here to tell us we're nitpickers. Oh, that's just sarcasm though, isn't it? ;-)
"Grade" A nipticker. Just funnin'.
Hahaha... am I really?
Well, you may be a nipticker, or then again maybe a nitpicker. I report, you decide.
I think we should nip this thread in the Budweiser.
I don't imbibe in al ke hol. But that was a cute rejoinder below.
Uh, oh. I just saw the other thread and Dex will accuse me of saying somebody is stoopid for improper English usage (which I do all the time). Doh!
You know what they say. You can pick your friends, and you can pick your nose. But never, ever pick your friends' nose.
And what proof do you have that Couric has "made it clear" in the past that she's a liberal? I'm not sure you have a leg to stand on with that one.
No leg to stand on? I wish I had a reply but I'm stumped.
Narrow view of irony? C'mon that's hilarious. The word has a meaning. How is it that these 'fundamentalist's' have such an easy time becoming total relativists when they don't know what the hell they're talking about?
"Sure you say I can't drive that oak tree downtown for a beer, but that's just because you have a narrow view of an oak tree. Let's just agree that we have different views of that. Then it's Fair and Balanced."
Sundog, we are in the world of black is white, up is down. The bizarro world of the neocons. You still think words have real meanings, ha! ;-0)
We're being led by people who read Orwell and thought it was an instruction manual instead of a warning.
Perhaps if you didn't use the word neocon so recklessly and knew it's real meaning, you wouldn't throw it around so incorrectly. Unless AA identifies himself as such, then your apparent misuse is wasted.
I thought liberals were such sticklers for proper word definition? Gosh.
Bzzzzzzt, Whap, whap!!!!!!!Whew, finally got that darn fly.
BTW I do know what the real word neocon means, but we use it as a perjorative since it's common perjorative language now. A bit ironic, eh? Nah.
Take it up with Clams then, because words have established definitions and just because you want to use the term neocons incorrectly as a slur against anyone other that a die-hard liberal, doesn't make it correct.
Sorry, but the fly is way ahead of you.
There is colloquial usage and slang as well, you, you neocon bastid..... ;-)
Tommy, some of them aren't Liberals anymore, they now call themselves Progressives.
I myself prefer Pinko Commies or the more up to date MoonBats ;-)
Okay you neocon bastid, I'm gonna start using "whacked out righty". ;-0)
Okay you neocon bastid, I'm gonna start using "whacked out righty". ;-0)
Actually Julia my little Moonbat, I think Wing-Nuts is the preferred term for the Right by most on your side:-)
J2, baby, I can think for myself. And I will use the Jeter defense when I like as well. I think I'll stick with neocon bastid, kinda cute. Every time I type it I laugh. It reminds me of the Seinfeld episode when George was cavorting with the Texas businessmen calling each other SOBs and Bastids.
Julia,
This is one of the silliest threads I've had the pleasure of having been pejoratived. But then, maybe I'm taking the narrow view?
AA, you call the thread silly (and it is) but it's also serious. Don't you see it as a problem when a network promotes someone to this level of 'journalist' when she doesn't know what the word irony is? How about the fact that someone had to proof her copy before she went on the air and read it? There is a real issue here considering that we come to this site to examine the media.
Another thing we've seen is that people are willing to aggressively argue against the point while they themselves don't know the meaning of this basic and important word? And when you show them the definition they just ignore it? How the hell are we supposed to argue with each other if one side can just say 'that's not a real word' about a word that describes a concept as far-reaching as irony? You love baiting us 'commies' but do you grasp any of the issues brought up here? Is being 'conservative' just another word for being macho and not having to think about difficult concepts?
Sundog,
I don't think I ever called the bunch of you 'commies'. So I think you've erred right there. Not that it matters much, but it shows you too are sometimes subject to a bit of hyperbole.
Next, I understand the concept of irony. I think Tommy does too. Having said that, I can see your point.
But I also see Couric's and Tommy's point, (although it pains me as I have the same regard for Katie as you.)
The irony as I see it is that these soldiers commented on the how dangerous banal, everyday activities are for the Iraqis because of the constant threat of dying either by terrorists or by being caught in the middle of a fight. In their view it could happen anytime or anywhere. (Let me say here that these soldiers dying in a truck roll over is tragic and they are indeed heroes.) Their death during a non-combat related incident, which, if Couric's account is correct, could be called a banal everyday activity.
The irony is that these soldiers said the Iraqi's lives were in danger of dying through bombs or bullets while engaging in banal activities and unfortunately, these same soldiers died in a banal incident that did not include bombs or bullets.
Maybe its not the perfect fit for an 'ironic situation' but I can see Couric's point.
Having said that I never have watched Couric as head news reader at CBS and don't have any plans for doing so. I thought CBS would have done better to hire Bernie Goldberg. Now there would be some rich irony.
As
Thanks for taking the time to spell that out AA. Our take on the story is really just being confused by that word. I know it seems like nit-picking but you'd be well served to look one more time. What you've described is a coincidence. They said that 'routine' activities could get you killed and then they were killed in a 'routine' activity. That's coincidental. It isn't ironic in any way. Really. It's not a matter of opinion or liberal or conservative.
A lot of people think that ironic means unfortunate or an unfortunate coincidence. It doesn't mean that even a little bit. It basically means the opposite of coincidence. If the story had been the exact opposite of what it was it would have been ironic. Here, "These soldiers wrote that while combat is dangerous, routine, banal activities are quite safe." Then if they were killed doing something 'routine' you could say it was ironic. It was the opposite of the very case they were making. It's not a fine point. Tommy was using the word exactly opposite to it's meaning. So was Couric and she's supposed to be a 'journalist'. That's why I was laying into it.
And you did it very well too with a lot of us cheering you on.
I do think it is important. When people cannot follow a logical argument it is problematic. Somewhere along the line their brain disengages and they prefer to remain ignorant. This is how so many politicians get elected on illogical statements and emotional appeals with no factual base.
My point exactly Mary. If we had better skills across the board of recognizing basic fallacies it wouldn't be so easy to confuse the electorate. In years of discussing things with Bush supporters I've come to see this as clear as the sky. It's not just righties who struggle with these concepts but it is far more consistent with them as a group. It's almost a prerequisite of embracing the Rove line. Of course if you try to come out and tell them this they get mad and say you're just an elitist and yadda yadda. It's a dangerously defensive anti-intellectual movement in a way. As though admitting you don't know something is far worse than learning something. How these patriots think dumbing us down helps us in our relations with the world is anybody's guess.
As you say, thinking logically isn't "elitist"
Intellectuals like David Broder (there are better examples but I'm in a hurry) who pontificate in an elitist fashion, ironically often have poor logic....
Irony is Bill O'Reilly cutting your mike because he doesn't like your responses during a discussion of why the fairness doctrine is supposed to infringe on the right's right to free speech.
Except that it can hardly be called an unexpected or unpredictable result when a loudmouthed, hypocritical, black-shirted bully like O'Lielly behaves like a loudmouthed, hypocritical, black-shirted bully, Snoop.
Mescal, I'm hoping that's just a joke. Don't make the English teacher take you out to the wood shed.
Good point.
Pro-choice
re-deploy
Iraqi insurgency
free healthcare
undocumented worker
support-the-troops
The list goes on...
ps. This was a reply to my Orwellian friend, Julia.
Support the Troops???? I'm pretty sure that one came from the Right. You know, "Support the troops, start a war for them to fight!" Seems that maybe considering that Iraq wan't a threat to us after all that using the phrase 'Support the Troops' could be more of a legitimate slogan for those who would like them to go home to their kids instead of dying in an unnecessary war. What exactly did you mean by that as an 'Orwellian' usage of the left? Really ironic stuff there AA. But I guess that's not a problem if we don't actually know what the word means.
And pro-choice means exactly what it says. A legal choice. Maybe it's more ironic for pro-death penalty, pro-war people to call themselves pro-life?
Actually, most of those things are actually what they are named. You can disagree with them as policy, but they're not really Orwellian. Do we need to get into definitions again?
Sun,
First things first, Julia brought up Orwell. I was just kidding her.
Secondly, these are euphamisms exrpressed by those on the left to mask their true meaning. I would argue that pro-choice is simply pro-abortion. I don't know why pro-choice people hide behind that label. If you believe people have the right to abort unborn babies, then stand up and say it.
I've heard some argue here that the US should just declare 'victory' and redeploy when in fact it is admitting defeat and cutting and running. I know some have no problems with that, but many here do seem to take umbrage when I point it out to them.
I understand the 'support our troops' thought process that taking them out of Iraq will make them safer. However when the Democratic leaders make ad hominum attacks on General Petreaus before he even gives his testimony, many in the service do not see that as support, but the exact opposite. When those on the right say support our troops, we mean support their mission. Support their effort, support the heroic tasks they undertake in the name of our country. Do not make them pawns in political battles for the White House... Oops I am getting off track. I'm sure you'll argue with me and that is fine.
In my opinion, and the opinion of many on the right that these examples I mentioned are but a few of the Orwellian double speak phrases that come out of the mouths of the Democrats.
I just thought of another - earmark reforms.
:-)
Let me guess, you've never read 1984? All you've done is shown that not only do you not understand the definition of irony, but you also don't understand the concept of Orwellian doublespeak. "Earmark reform" is not Orwellian doublespeak. It is exactly what it says it is. Earmark reform. What do you think it is? In fact, looking at all of your examples of supposedly "Democratic"" Orwellian phrases, they either didn't originate with Democrats or they are straightforward, literal descriptions.
I read 1984 back around '71. So much for the quality of your guessing.
The phrase "earmark reform" is straight forward. But if you followed what actually is happening, you know that the exact opposite is happening. Earmarks have an easier time getting into bills now than before the reform.
Hence the double-speak. Argue it if you wish.
It's been 36 years, man. Maybe you should crack it open again:
War is Peace
Ignorance is Strength
Slavery is Freedom
Those are admittedly from memory - I may have the first one incorrect. My last reading of the book was 2 years ago.
AA, what you are doing in turning pro-choice into pro-abortion is actually far more Orwellian than anything. Again, it is about irony. When the actual meaning of a phrase is the opposite of the projection. Your switch is just a straw man. I'm not for abortion, it's tragic. I'm against the US government having the power to tell women they can't have an abortion. They should have the choice. It literally is pro-choice. That is very not Orwellian language. The attempt to switch it to pro-abortion is a cheap, emotional ploy. You know straw men arguments are dishonest.
"I would argue that pro-choice is simply pro-abortion. I don't know why pro-choice people hide behind that label."
Probably because "pro-abortion" is not accurate. "Pro-abortion rights" is one thing, but "pro-abortion" makes it sound like people want others to have abortions, and that's not the case for anyone I know. The actual position is that the number of abortions should be reduced because there should be less unwanted pregnancies, but the right should remain. In other words, "pro-choice".
By the merits of your argument, why don't pro-lifers call themselves "pro-forced birth"? Or, since making abortion illegal isn't actually going to eradicate the practice of it, why not go with "pro-illegal abortion"? Or "pro-coat hanger"? Really, why not say what you mean instead of hiding behind a label?
Brab,
You are really stretching it here. You are simply kidding yourself if you say you are against abortion but for abortion rights. Double-speak at its best.
As distasteful to you as it may be, Your position put you on the side for abortions. You may say you do not want it but, in the end, there is no way around it. In every case, the aborted unborn baby ends up being killed. You are deceiving yourself to say you are against abortions when you support others right to abort.
Pro-life says it all with regards to children in the womb. It is succinct and descriptive. Pro-abortion is also succinct and describes exactly your position. Just because it is distasteful to you, you should accept it.
It's not double-speak at all. I would love it if there are zero abortions. I would love it if there were no unwanted pregnancies.
It's really a question of whether you understand reality or not. If you really think that you can tell teenagers not to have sex and they won't, then pro-life is the position for you. If you really think that making abortion illegal will end it, there you go. But the reality of the situation is that we will have unwanted pregnancies, and we will have abortions, legal or not. So the best thing you can do with this highly unfortunate reality is to try to reduce the number as best as you can, and to keep it safer by keeping it legal. That's not approving of abortion, as your title implies, it's just dealing with the inevitability of the situation in a sane manner.
So "pro-abortion", no matter how many times you repeat it, is not accurate. Surely you have the capability of understanding this simple distinction if you make a small effort at it.
Yes it is. You can obfuscate but you can't hide.
But this is a topic for another time.
You are flat out wrong. I am pro-choice but hate abortion. And I'm a woman who had to thing very hard about that awful "choice."
And you obviously can't address what I'm saying. I'm not "obfuscating" anything. If anything I wrote is unclear to you, I'm happy to clarify it, although I don't think it's that complicated.
In all fairness, if pro-abortion is an accurate label in your opinion, then anti-choice should be an accurate label for the side that attempts to pass itself as being pro-life. If not anti-choice, then perhaps pro-fetus.
My bad, Julia did not bring up G.O.
That aint no biggie. There's a million threads twisted around here. AA, I'll bet you a beer, OK, two of your buds to one of my pints, I'll bet you a bunch of beer that you're pro-choice just as much as I am. We might have to settle the bet somewhere else because it's taking me a while to wade through all these posts. But remember that, call me on it somethime.
Yes, the clear sky initiative
No Child's behind left (alone by GOP pervs)
Operation Iraq Liberation OIL (now Operation Iraqi Freedom), but ironically still OIL
Pro-life (with exceptions) Is that like friends with benefits?
Surge (sounds better than endless deployments)
Strengthening Social security (cutting retirment benefits)
Outsourcing (sounds so benevolent)
Juliajayne, OUTSTANDING!!!!!!
It would be even better if you didn't have to add the modifiers at the end.
Yes, Ican see why YOU don't like the modifiers. Ha.
*sigh* My point Julia, is that if you have to explain them, then they aren't very orwellian.
"Sure you say I can't drive that oak tree downtown for a beer, but that's just because you have a narrow view of an oak tree.
I'm pretty sure Fred Flintstone's car was made out of an oak tree ;-)
http://www.fresh99.com/fred-flintstone-car.htm
Damn J2 ya got me there. Socrates would have been proud. But then his car was made of an oak tree too.
BTW, I think driving an oak tree to get a beer is acorny idea. Even though olive beer I wood never think of it , but depending on how fir it is, maybe my dogwood. He is very poplar down at the gin mill.
Irony around in circles with you way too much AA.
funny, I thought it just a coincidence?
Sun,
I think it is self evident that the meanings of words change over time. Dictionaries are by nature, slow to recognize those changes.
I, in my unceasing effort to explain things to liberals, have just again fallen short. (If only I had a leg to stand on, it might be different.)
But AA, what has been suggested here is that irony means coincidence which it just flat-out doesn't. It is a strong word with a very specific meaning.
I'll grant you that. I've thought about it and this argument is not a good one. Thanks for the comments.
I think I made my case a bit better further up the line.
Semantic nitpicking for one's own cause?
This is pretty damn funny coming from the guy who said Limbaugh never said Michael J. Fox was faking his Parkinson's disease symptoms, just acting. And that's not the same as faking.
Unbelievable.
Did I say that or did you just enter this discussion from a time warp a couple of years ago?
I didn't know there was a statute of limitations on blatant partisan hypocrisy.
But for the record, you most certainly did say that.
Brab,
Time to let it go. Move.On my friend. Your post has nothing to do with this discussion and if you have to go back almost a year to an unrelated thread to make some sort of point, you need to get a life. Besides, what you wrote is completely out of context. And there is no hypocrisy on my part. (Maybe Sundog can give you lesson on definitions. He's pretty good at it.)
For anyone interested, Here is what I wrote last October to which I think you are referring:
You should note...
Rush never said MJF was 'faking'. Lauer said it, but not Rush.
At the time, based on seeing Fox on "Boston Legal" Rush wondered if Fox were acting or off his meds.
There is a huge difference between 'acting' and 'faking' as Lauer put it.
As many of you are so quick to dismiss, Rush also said on the same show after the commercial break that if MJF were not acting and not off his meds he'd apologize. Seems fair enough to me.
As a side note, (and correct me if I am wrong,) I thought I heard today that MJF said those movements are side effects from over medication.
Everybody, including Rush, is saying that MJF has the right to go on camera anyway he wants and say whatever he wants.
I know many of you are going crazy over this time and again, but really...
A poster's honesty and credibility are always relevant. For you to talk about "semantic nitpicking for one's own cause" is unbelievably hypocritical bearing in mind what you said then. And I'm very familiar with what you said. I didn't go searching through some set of personal archives looking for an example of your hypocrisy, I laughed out loud immediately when I saw your "semantic nitpicking" comment because I remembered your defense of Limbaugh. It was very easy to google it after that point.
"There is a huge difference between 'acting' and 'faking' as Lauer put it."
What was that "huge" difference? You never did adequately explain that. If that wasn't "semantic nitpicking for your cause", then such a thing has never happened.
If you'd like to retract your defense of Limbaugh, that's fine. Or you can take back your comments here. But you can't stand by both arguments at the same time without being a blatant hypocrite. And honestly, if you don't like being held accountable for your own dishonest arguments, that's too damn bad.
Oh look, another conservative baffled by the search feature.
nitpicking............................
For gosh sakes get a rotor in your motor if you want to post here, you neocon bastid ;-0)
It's getting fun to use that phrase.
"There is no irony in the death of a soldier performing his daily duties". With all due respect, that statement either shows you lack of knowledge about irony or the daily duties of soldiers.
I assume you were attempting to reply to a post of mine from the beginning of the thread, the rest of which read: "...These soldiers wrote about being in constant danger. Their deaths illustrate this fact. This is not irony."
You've already proven that you don't understand the definition of irony, so I won't beat that dead horse any more, but I wonder what it is about the daily life of a soldier that you think I don't understand. Mora and Gray wrote that one could get killed performing the banal duties of everyday life in Iraq and they were killed in a car accident, thus tragically proving their own point. Soldiers have been dying as they perform their daily duties since this war began. They die in car accidents, helicopter crashes, or even in the mess tent as they try to eat lunch. They all died in the service of the military. Soldiers die. It's tragic and it's horrible, but it's not unexpected. No matter how mundane their task was when they were killed, they wouldn't have been killed had they not been in Iraq,
Clams, very elequont post. I know you must be sick of the element here that refuses to get it, but I and most of the others do. Thanks for doing yeomans' service for us.
Just the usual CC. Use the stubborn opposition to sharpen your pen and clarify your own arguments. And exercise your patience. They do serve a purpose. And AA can pun like a mutha. Just don't try too hard to save their souls 'cause they'll just break your heart.
Damn, what an ELITIST I am!
A pet peeve of mine would be those who engage in passive aggressive behavior, such as yourself who obviously does not have the tenacity to engage me but would rather passively refer to my comments with sarcasm to other posters.
Clams,
Everyone I do believe understands your point. In that respect you are correct, if we weren't over there, the soldiers would not have died in that truck roll over.
Once again, the irony is that the soldiers said Iraqis were in danger of dying while doing mundane activites and it is the soldiers who unfortunately suffered that tragic fate in a mundane activity. (Not that their death is mundane.)
But I appreciate Julia and Sun's loving condescension. (I hear Hank singin in the background...)
All we know about their activities prior to the accident was that they were returning from a raid. Do you still want to call this "routine" or "mundane." These are non-combat fatalities, but that's the norm, not the exception. Bill Moyers' The Cost of War reported how the military hides the numbers of non-combat fatalities, but accounting in past wars tells us that the number is often higher than combat fatalities. From the PBS Now website: "In the first Gulf War, battle deaths were only 148, non-battle deaths in the war theater reached 235."
The fact that these two soldiers had written about Iraqi civilians being in danger doesn't make their deaths in the aftermath of a raid ironic. The twist of irony is nowhere to found there.
I, and others here, were simply simply going by Couric's account. as posted by MMFA. I see others have a different take. Fair enough. I can see, if this is account is true, that it is related to military action. Fine. It does not diminish the sacrifice those men made for our country. Apparently you want to argue that their deaths were combat related. If that is the actual case, then this discussion is moot and Couric was simply wrong.
While you make a point about the different ways casualties are classified in a war, it does not take away from their deaths. It is only in the circumstances in which they died. God bless all those who are wounded or die serving our country.
"I can see, if this is account is true, that it is related to military action. Fine. It does not diminish the sacrifice those men made for our country."
I certainly never implied that it did.
"Apparently you want to argue that their deaths were combat related."
I don't, actually. We haven't been given the full story, and it doesn't serve my point or the point of this article to argue whether it was combat related or non-combat related. As I've pointed out over and over again here, either way Couric is wrong to say that it was ironic. A lot of people have gotten stuck on that in this thread, but whether or not you wish to classify their actions that day as routine, their deaths still aren't ironic.
Not trying to be condescending. Just think we should argue in the same language. There's been enough confusion manufactured between our 'sides' already. As if we're not on the same side. If we could actually get to the truth of some of our arguments we could probably make a better government. Red herrings, taunts, straw men and flat-out not understanding where the other side is coming from is the dung that evil freaks like Rove plant all their seeds in. It's a bad crop we reap oh my brothers and sisters.
Loving condescension? That phrase sounds very condescending. But if you can't win on the merits, use a wingnuttian tactic of labeling someone.
"Mora and Gray wrote that one could get killed performing the banal duties of everday life in Iraq and they were killed in a car accident, thus tragically proving their own point" Thanks for proving my point there Clams. How in the world do you reconcile that statement with the countless others in this thread in which you have taken the postition that their is no banal activities for soldiers in Iraq. If you would like we can go back over your posts and I can give you several instances in which you directly contradict your statement I quoted above. Wow!!!!
What I have said over and over and over again in this thread is that even if one wishes to call their actions "routine" or "banal," their deaths are still not ironic. Again, you've completely lost the plot of the argument here. If you think you can come up with contradictions in my argument, then start cutting and pasting, and I'll respond.
"Mora and Gray wrote that one could get kill performing the banal activities of everday life in Iraq and they were killed in a car accident, thus tragically proving their own point"
"The point is that there was nothing routine, normal, or banal about Gray and Mora's presence in Iraq, they weren't going about their normal lives"
"Day to day life for Iraqi's is like walking through landmines, jus as day to day "normal" life for our soldiers is"
What is the point they tragically proved, Clams? Was their point that one could get killed killed performing banal activities? If that is the case then how do you reconcile that with the last two quotes of yours?
Oh yeah, as far as the "plot of the argument" it's simple really. If one takes the definition given at the beginning of the thread concenring irony then MMFA is saying that couric is wrong because she didn't explan how these soldiers deaths were not incongruous wiht the normal or expected result. My argument all along has been that non combat deaths are not normal or expected therefore their deaths would not be incongruous with their specific activities.
Their basic point boiled down to its bare essence was that Iraq is an extremely dangerous place for both soldiers and civilians. I think it would be impossible for anyone--even you--to disagree with this. Underlining that point is the fact that they were killed shortly thereafter. That's not even close to being ironic. As others have pointed out here, the only way it would be ironic would be if before being killed the soldiers had written the opposite, and assured everyone how safe it was in Iraq. That's irony.
So in order to shoe-horn their deaths into the definition of irony, Couric focused on the part of the op-ed that mentioned danger being found in the banalities of life for civilians. And as you have claimed, soldiers aren't expected to die doing routine, banal things, so therefore their deaths are ironic. Wrong. That's not irony. Even if we accept the false idea that soldiers are only expected to die in a firefight (something disproven by every war, past and present), their deaths still aren't ironic in light of what they'd written. Again, if they had written about how safe it was performing the daily routine, then their deaths would be ironic.
You have locked yourself in this closet of how this is not irony. As I showed you above and which was given to us at the beginning of the thread, the defnition of irony in this context is "incongruity between the acutual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result" Clams, there is in fact compatability between their deaths (actual result of events) and the normal or expected outcome (dying while engaging in banal activities) as they described iraqi's doing in the times piece. It's that simple. You cling to this rigid stance because if you move back you will have to admit you are wrong. It seems you are the kind of person who would rather eat S#*t than admit you are wrong. Well, all I can tell you is... enjoy your lunch my friend. Hopefully, EVEN YOU can comprehend that.
So everyone is wrong except you, Tommy, Katie Couric and Alanis Morissette. Oh and the other dude with the randomly generated name with the string of numbers at the end who only bothered to post once. Got it.
At the end of the thread, Goshzilla just did a great job of shooting your entire argument out of the water. I'll bow down to his concise rebuttal and now bow out of the debate once and for all.
I'll go with Sundog on words and their meanings.
Boy did it take a long time to get here.
Calling a death ironic trivalizes it. Calling a military death ironic has been done. Its context is usually in company with some very dark humor. Laugh or cry, in situations usually expressed by a participent. An example from various media is MASH.
CBS has been a bit lairy recently. One of our poster's got a snarky reply to her complaint. Firedoglake has recieved a threat of possible legal action from CBS.
Eweston, you maybe correct that discussing it like we have trivalizes the noble and heroic sacrifice these soldiers made. I am sorry if I am a part of it as that is not my intent.
All in all, I think it was poor form for Katie to talk about those soldiers in that fashion on TV like that.
May God bless those soldiers and their families. My heartfelt condolences goes out to all of them. They are true heroes and I am forever grateful for the sacrifice they made.
I'm ok with you AA. I don't think any poster here trivializes their deaths. On the whole what posts of yours today I've seen have been good.
"Firedoglake has recieved a threat of possible legal action from CBS."
Would you mind elaborating on this? I find this fascinating.
Couric is not a liberal. She is a corporate shill. Anything could appear on the teleprompter and she would read it. Like the RCA dog she "hears the voice of her master(s)."
Bob Woodruff went over to Iraq as part of a Bush campaign to show that Iraq was getting safer. He suffered a traumatic brain injury when a roadside bomb struck his army transport vehicle in Taji.
THIS IS IRONY
If the soldiers had written that things were getting better in Iraq and had then been killed, it would be irony. But they didn't
THIS ISN'T IRONY
Excellent. And if that doesn't make it crystal clear to "nobody in particular," then nothing will.
Next on the agenda: Explain the proper use of the word "literally." I'm sure I'm not the only one who has a pet peeve about that one.
I'm sorry to disagree, but "ironic" is the perfect term to use. They wrote about how difficult it was for Iraqis to go about their every day lives without dying, and they die in an everyday event. How much more ironic could it be? Of course, whether it is not incredibly insensitive to point this out-that is a different matter.
If I were to assume Couric was correctly using the word irony, I guess this could mean one thing. She fully expects every soldier in Iraq to die by terrorists. So ironically these guys died in an accident, not in combat. Ironically some soldiers have not been wounded yet. Ironically some soldiers have not come back in a draped coffin. Hey I have a friend who served in Iraq, it's ironic I say that because he's not dead.