07 August 2011

The importance of being balanced

I don't know what to say aside of: balance is important, of course, and yours truly has it (sometimes) in excess. I mean, it's considered a good policy here to bash every side of every issue. Smokers and anti-smokers, left and right, Israel and Palestine, rich and poor, Semites and anti-Semites, etc. After all, where we'll all be if we see and support only one side?

But do you know what? From time to time one gets a bit tired of the balancing act. So it's with somewhat guilty conscience that I have enjoyed (and would recommend wholeheartedly that you do so too, even if guiltily) that article with a sexy title Oh, snap! by Courtney aka GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD. Yes, the site where it's published is not hers, she was invited to that place. And for a good reason. Or, to be precise, good many reasons like this:

The most literate Arabs ever on the face of the earth (your choice — the Strip or the Ramallahopolis) pounding their AKM’s, K’Ssams, K’Tushahs and K’GRADs into laptops and stripper poles in a joyous celebration of a fully functional democracy where fun and free choice reign instead of ye olde whee tarded shame, honor, gendercide and revanchist revenge driven parasite enclaves with rocket rich rejectionists and West Bank victimisticism.
Nifty writing, one-sided or not. Good (if not easy, as usual) read too. But then, there appeared a professor (one Rex Brynen, probably this one) that chides Courtney thusly:
You've also failed to address all the pretty obvious moral, strategic, and political counter-arguments. The folks (of all political stripes) who discuss these things seriously soon get pretty tired of monochrome partisanship, and veer away from it. You could do a lot better.
Now, for the sake of balance and fairness I have to quote the good professor saying in his other comment:
Well, other than that whole ethnic cleansing/mass forced displacement thing in 1948, and that post-1967 occupation thing. I think they're a tad miffed about those.
Obviously partisanship and balance or lack of it are all in the eye of the beholder professor, and what is allowed to professor is, apparently, not allowed to Courtney.

Anyhow, the situation (is it a situation, really? dunno) described above, gave me a jolt. You see, it's just the other day that I have read, with a growing sense of... well, a sense that I don't really want to read it, an op-ed by Mr Nicholas Donabet Kristof at that bastion of... all right, in NYT. The title is:

And the messages of this op-ed are:
  • Jeremy Ben-Ami of J Street is Da Joo and you, in Israel there, better listen up when he talks!
  • There are some good Jooz in US of A (about 78% of them all, what voted for BHO) and the other ones, the ones "who vote and donate based on Israel" (whatever it means, don't ask me) and "are disproportionately conservative". (I was totally discombobulated by this lack of balance: 78% vs what? 22%? How can 22% be "disproportionately conservative"?  Maybe they are trying to compensate for being so few and restore the balance? D'you wanna bet that Nicholas Donabet Kristof missed this point?)
  • To vote for Israel’s right to defend itself by a vote 390 to 5 (in the Congress, I guess), is not a good balance
  • And, probably, more of them messages, but I got enough by now, if you see what I mean.
Yeah... I can see where the game has to improve to get a grudging approval by NYT: Congress has to be balanced in its voting about Israel. A simple random assignment of the votes that will assure that 50% vote for each side will do. Well, maybe with slight variance from time to time - to spice the game a bit. The Jooz will be split in two equal teams: one for Obama and one for the other one, when and if. The money to be split equally as well (anyway, Obama will take care of  the "equally" part before late). Jeremy B.A. will still be Da Joo, balance or no balance.

Here is Mr Kristof:

Looks to me like a man who's definitely found his balance (well, a Pulitzer on each shoulder will do it).

So why it is that each time I open the page with that article, I see the same ad:

Something is out of balance there in NYT...

Now: please do a reset and go back to read that cool article Oh, snap! by Courtney. OK?


Yitzchak Goodman said...

I try to balance all the Imperialist discourse with my Juche-oriented posts . . .

Pisa said...

Speaking of balance, everyone talks about "that post-1967 occupation thing".  What about that pre-1967 occupation thing?

I'll add my weight to the already unbalanced World According To Courtney.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Ah... that should surely mollify Mr Kristof. I hope so, at least.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

The pre-1967 occupation thing is too far back for people in NYT to keep in their tiny busy minds...