The Israelis have discovered sarcasm.

I guess I need a “Sarcasm” category.

Actually, this part puzzled me a little:

However, she noted that the research threw little light on the popular national stereotypes of the English as highly sarcastic and the Americans as totally lacking in irony.

I recall a survey in the Economist several years ago, when they had a little vignette of a description by a member of the foreign service about a certain African (or some other Third-World) country. He apparently said, with face straight, that the problem with the place was that the people there “lacked a sense of irony.”

But I didn’t know they thought that was the case here, or that such a stereotype exists. I do think that Brits tend to have a more ironic, drier sense of humor (droll, if you will), but that doesn’t mean that we don’t do it in America. If she thinks that Americans aren’t sarcastic, she’s never been to New York. Or Boston.

[An update]

It reminds me of the old joke about the Soviet Russian, the American, the Ethiopian, and an Israeli (don’t ask me why). A reporter runs up to them, and asks, “Excuse me, what ‘s your opinion about the meat shortage?”

The Ethiopian asks “What’s meat”?

The American asks, “What’s a shortage?”

The Russian asks, “What’s an opinion?”

The Israeli asks, “What’s this ‘Excuse me’?”

The Israelis have discovered sarcasm.

I guess I need a “Sarcasm” category.

Actually, this part puzzled me a little:

However, she noted that the research threw little light on the popular national stereotypes of the English as highly sarcastic and the Americans as totally lacking in irony.

I recall a survey in the Economist several years ago, when they had a little vignette of a description by a member of the foreign service about a certain African (or some other Third-World) country. He apparently said, with face straight, that the problem with the place was that the people there “lacked a sense of irony.”

But I didn’t know they thought that was the case here, or that such a stereotype exists. I do think that Brits tend to have a more ironic, drier sense of humor (droll, if you will), but that doesn’t mean that we don’t do it in America. If she thinks that Americans aren’t sarcastic, she’s never been to New York. Or Boston.

[An update]

It reminds me of the old joke about the Soviet Russian, the American, the Ethiopian, and an Israeli (don’t ask me why). A reporter runs up to them, and asks, “Excuse me, what ‘s your opinion about the meat shortage?”

The Ethiopian asks “What’s meat”?

The American asks, “What’s a shortage?”

The Russian asks, “What’s an opinion?”

The Israeli asks, “What’s this ‘Excuse me’?”

The Israelis have discovered sarcasm.

I guess I need a “Sarcasm” category.

Actually, this part puzzled me a little:

However, she noted that the research threw little light on the popular national stereotypes of the English as highly sarcastic and the Americans as totally lacking in irony.

I recall a survey in the Economist several years ago, when they had a little vignette of a description by a member of the foreign service about a certain African (or some other Third-World) country. He apparently said, with face straight, that the problem with the place was that the people there “lacked a sense of irony.”

But I didn’t know they thought that was the case here, or that such a stereotype exists. I do think that Brits tend to have a more ironic, drier sense of humor (droll, if you will), but that doesn’t mean that we don’t do it in America. If she thinks that Americans aren’t sarcastic, she’s never been to New York. Or Boston.

[An update]

It reminds me of the old joke about the Soviet Russian, the American, the Ethiopian, and an Israeli (don’t ask me why). A reporter runs up to them, and asks, “Excuse me, what ‘s your opinion about the meat shortage?”

The Ethiopian asks “What’s meat”?

The American asks, “What’s a shortage?”

The Russian asks, “What’s an opinion?”

The Israeli asks, “What’s this ‘Excuse me’?”

In the midst of all the foofaraw over Newsweek’s eagerness to libel the Bush administration, Iowahawk has a story that’s been much less reported:

The debris-strewn streets of this remote Midwestern hamlet remain under a tense 24-hour curfew tonight, following weekend demonstrations by rock- and figurine-throwing Lutheran farm wives that left over 200 people injured and leveled the Whippy Dip dairy freeze. The rioting appeared to be prompted, in part, by a report in Newsweek magazine claiming military guards at Spirit Lake

Real experts are too boring.

Sadly, there’s a lot of truth to it.

Via Alan Boyle]

Real experts are too boring.

Sadly, there’s a lot of truth to it.

Via Alan Boyle]

Real experts are too boring.

Sadly, there’s a lot of truth to it.

Via Alan Boyle]

Questions about John Bolton’s fitness for representing the US at the United Nations were heightened today as more staffers came forward to describe his chronic abuse of his subordinates and volatile, unpredictable temper, as demonstrated in this Senate testimony:

Q: Frank, could we go back? Could you characterize your meeting with Bolton? Was he calm?

MR. FINGAR: No, he was angry. He was standing up.

Q: Did he raise his voice to you? Did he point his finger in your face?

MR. FINGAR: I don’t remember if he pointed. John speaks in such a low voice normally. Was it louder than normal? Probably. I wouldn’t characterize it as screaming at me or anything like that. It was more, hands on hips, the body language as I recall it, I knew he was mad.

Well, you can imagine that when I read this, I was simply shocked at the thought of such a monster representing us at Turtle Bay, reinforcing our international image as an out-of-control cowboy, hands on hips, fingers just centimeters from holsters. I decided to interview some other former staffers to see if this frightening incident was just the tip of an iceberg of hot fury. I got a few leads from the DNC, and came up with some pretty juicy stuff.

First, a “Nita Valium” recounted a fearful encounter with the fiend:

TM: So, what prompted the out-of-control incident that you experienced with Mr. Bolton?

NV: I brought some coffee in to him one morning, and accidentally spilled it on his lap, severely scalding his private parts.

TM: And how did he react?

NV: It was just horrible. He stood up, got a napkin to dry off, wiped off his trousers as best he could, and told me in a tone slightly louder than normal, that I should be more careful. I could tell he was on the very verge of shaking his finger at me. He seems like the quiet type at first, but you can tell that under that mustache, he’s always smoldering, just like Hitler. You never know when he’s going to explode.

TM: Was that the end of it?

NV: Later on, I heard that he had requested that someone else bring him coffee after that. He got his wish–I’ve never been able to do that again. My promising career as a coffee-bringer-to-John-Bolton has been ruined, and I had to settle for a promotion to a different department.

Another former staffer, “A. Peazement,” related the nominee’s response upon being informed that the State Department intended to recommend that North Korea be made permanent head of the UN Committee on Human Rights. He still shuddered in fear at the recollection of the incident, though it was years ago:

TM: So, he didn’t take it well?

AP: No, not at all. He raised his voice almost a half a decibel, and asked me why.

TM: Did your explanation satisfy him?

AP: Well, he said it did, but you could tell he was seething. His voice had the reasonable, calm sound of someone about to explode with fury and fling sharp and heavy items off the top of the desk at you. He was starting to almost frown at me, and I could tell that he was going to put his hands on his hips any minute, but I managed to get out of the room before he could do it.

This correspondent has to ask: How did this brute manage to work in a federal bureaucracy for so many years, with no apparent consequences? How has this kind of behavior gone so unnoticed for so long? How many more sadistic fiends like this are there out there, waiting to be nominated to some sensitive diplomatic post by this bloodthirsty administration? When can we once again be led by people who have the proper temper, and temperament for power?

Heh. Indeed.

Iowahawk has the scoop on the latest judicial implications of the Supreme Court’s new legal theories:

“The decision underscores the principle of Federalism by creating uniformity in our notoriously inconsistent state dowry laws,” noted Harvard Law professor Lawrence Tribe. “For example, Iowa grooms are entitled to $300 and a two-night honeymoon trip to the Wisconsin Dells, while just across the border in Missouri, grooms only get $200 and a set of air shocks for their TransAm. Thankfully, the Court has brought some sanity to the situation.”