The 10 Most Pretentious Moments in History

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

27 December 12

 

want to thank readers for their sincere and heartfelt participation in the quest to determine the 10 most pretentious moments in history – and where David Brooks deciding to teach a course in "Humility" at Yale fits on that list.

Between Twitter and the comments section, and a few scattered emails, we had nearly 500 submissions. As with the Write-Like-Friedman contest, many were of the laugh-out-loud variety. One of my favorites was from "Katherine Kaufman," whose choice for the most pretentious moment ever was, "Everything Steve Smith does and says and wears every day on ESPN. And my father in law." I actually like Steven A., and I don't know Katherine's father-in-law, but I'm still strongly considering putting both on the list. I had to respect "Alyosha Karamazov" for having the balls to pick a screen name from one of the most pretentious novels ever and then nominate Mother Teresa as his choice for most pretentious person ever. I almost died laughing reading that one.

A great many people nominated two individuals in particular: Newt Gingrich and Norman Mailer. "Brady Fratland" summed up the Mailer complaints perfectly:

The White Negro . . . Jesus, that was painful to read. Actually, anything Norman Mailer did after 1960... his fawning over Cassius Clay/ Muhammad Ali, showing up at anti-war protests at the Pentagon wearing military-style web canteen belts he'd bought from some tony NYC boutique. . . Second place has to be Kenny G doing a retrospective of Louis Armstrong's standards. Yeesh.

While "John M" summed up the Newt nominations:

I have to agree with the Newt Gingrich inclusion on any level as he is, without question, one of the true carriers of the eternal gasbag...but it's this quote from him (that can be found inscribed in the hallowed halls of The Douchebag Academy) that puts him firmly in the top 10 imo as a paragon to all pretentious blowhards past, present, and future... "It doesn't matter what I do. People need to hear what I have to say. There's no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn't matter what I live."

Newt actually said that to his second wife, on the occasion of his leaving her for a mistress, in response to her question about how he could be doing that a day after giving a speech on family values. He's also said lots of other truly awesome things, one of my favorite being "People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz."

But I feel like there should be a blanket exemption to both Mailer and Newt (the "Gingrich/Mailer gasbag exemption"?). They're just too funny to be on the list. It's the same with Rush Limbaugh. On the autopsy table, if they can find an instrument strong enough to saw through the smile on his face, I'm pretty sure they'll find out he was in on the joke all along.

Incidentally, a number of people said I myself should make the list, for making this list. That was tough for me to judge – it was like that South Park scene where they trapped Funnybot in a logic loop and exploded his brain. But it's a good point and I should probably rate an honorable mention at least. In the meantime, in reverse order, here are the other most pretentious moments in history, as nominated by readers:

10. Ted Kennedy's post-Chappaquiddick comments about privileges for the "High and Mighty"

On the occasion of Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon, Kennedy said:

Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law? Or is there one system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty?

Reader "motorcyclist" wondered if this was "more irony than gasbaggery," while emailer "Lancelot" noted the posthumously-discovered fact that Kennedy liked to make jokes about Chappaquiddick:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moPnGX0MSLU

9. "The Decision"

Reader "Kevalier" wrote:

LeBron James and "The Decision' has to rank right up there.

Added "Ben":

Um. . . The Decision?

LeBron's televised mega-tacular in front of the slobbering Jim Gray did make Rickey Henderson's entire career of talking about himself in the third person seem like a Trappist vow of silence. Still most sports writers say LeBron is actually a decent guy who's genuinely embarrassed by "The Decision" now, unlike some previous wearers of the "Greatest Athlete Alive" crown, who only became more dickish with age.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTeCc8jy7FI

8. Sting, the Rolling Stone Interview

Nominated by reader "KRH" and by emailer "Chainsaw Mike," who also sent in the clip below from Dana Carvey. My favorite part of the RS interview was when they asked Sting if he was planning on going the rest of his life without playing with the Police again. His response: "Why do you think that's important?" Well, um, because people liked the Police – but sorry we asked!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fMVE_8vHXU

7. William Bennett publishes the Book of Virtues

Bennett received multiple nominations, many of them of the fist-shaking variety. Reader "JMF" summed them up:

Besides someone responsible for enforcing racist and socially destructive drug laws while being a moral guardian on anything, it came out later that Bennett was a ferocious gambling addict, seriously damaging his family to feed his habit. But his habit is legalized and regulated, so I guess it's OK.

What's great about Bennett is that when he says something crazy, he doesn't apologize, but doubles down every time, which might explain his gambling problem. Like the time he said that aborting all African-American babies "would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but the crime rate would go down."

Instead of crawling into a hole forever as any normal celebrity would after making a comment like that, Bennett angrily responded:

...a thought experiment about public policy, on national radio, should not have received the condemnations it has. Anyone paying attention to this debate should be offended by those who have selectively quoted me, distorted my meaning and taken out of context the dialogue I engaged in this week.

What part of aborting all black babies would lower the crime rate was "out of context"? Another great Bennett quality: he can't go more than twenty-five seconds without quoting Plato, Aristotle, or some other person he clearly believes is an intellectual colleague:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV0aI82MhUU

6. Oprah spanks James Frey

As reader "shortbutmighty" put it:

Oprah Winfrey forcing James Frey to sit through an hour of her outraged tears on national television when she found out that he had lied to HER in fabricating A Million Little Pieces (and a million other people too).

Additional points for having the clips of that episode appear on a "Top 25 Oprah Show Moments" program that aired on the Oprah network, with Oprah appearing as a commentator. Thanks for dining at Oprah's –would you like some more Oprah in your Oprah?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewC-KIe5qng

5. The Nicholas Sparks USA Today Interview

As reader "Gayle Force" wrote:

That time Nicholas Sparks (author of such brilliant and erudite literature as A Walk to Remember and The Notebook) put himself in the company of Sophocles, Austen, Hemingway, and Shakespeare, and then asserted Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian was complete trash.

The actual quote from Sparks:

I write in a genre that was not defined by me. The examples were not set out by me. They were set out 2,000 years ago by Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides. They were called the Greek tragedies.

The interview inspired blog titles like "Nicholas Sparks Douches it Up for USA Today" and "Newsflash: Nicholas Sparks Is An Asshole." I want to personally thank "Gayle Force" because if he/she hadn't mentioned this, I might never have seen this send-up of The Notebook:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5viFhncsUE

4. Literally every episode of Inside the Actors' Studio

As submitted by reader "Andy." Lipton is really too funny to be on this list, but he got a lot of votes. Many emailers submitted videos of their favorite Actors' Studio spoofs. The most popular was this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BwcCHyidMk

Although I was always partial to the MadTV Lipton-Andie McDowell interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4yLQO3WqZ4

3. David Brooks teaches Humility at Yale

See last week's column. The Brooks-teaching-Humility news was reported with at best a wink or a groan even in New Haven. The Yale Herald's "Bullblog" tossed in this item:

The semester is winding down, but section assholes, take note: your attempts to suckle at the power teat may just be getting started.

You may be familiar with David Brooks from his three books, from his New York Times columns, or from his presence on PBS NewsHour, but if that just doesn't feel like enough, you will soon have a really slim chance to know the "liberals' favorite conservative" in a totally different capacity: as your professor. That's right—this "spring," Brooks will be bringing his famed self and his less-well-known teaching credentials (?) to our very own campus.

And what's he teaching? It would only make sense for this course to be called "Humility." Brooks is not only a real big name in general but also kind of an expert on the topic—a quick Google search reveals that he's written on it in the NYT and discussed it at the Aspen Ideas Festival—so we can pretty much agree that this is fitting. As if the irony weren't already enough, this class is also a Global Affairs seminar, so, like, humility, guys. Perfect. Especially recommended if you were tempted by Grand Strategy but really just don't have the ego for it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGfhahVBIQw

2. Ayn Rand says anything at all

Rand received a great many votes. Reader "NevadoZ" simply submitted this quote of Rand's: "The smallest minority on earth is the individual." Ayn Rand fits this list for many reasons, but the biggest is that she had absolutely no sense of humor. You can smoke a whole ounce of the world's most potent marijuana and not laugh a single time reading one of Rand's books. One can't, however, promise the same result with this famous Rand appearance with Phil Donahue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx-LpRSbbeA

1. Martin Amis writes The Age of Horrorism and other stuff

I'd never read this book, but boy, did it, and Amis generally, get a lot of nominations. Reader "Bet Mulligan" summed things up, quoting from Amis's book, The Second Plane:

Martin Amis on the use of the shorthand 9/11

"My principal objection to the numbers is that they are numbers," he writes in "The Second Plane." "The solecism, that is to say, is not grammatical but moral-aesthetic — an offense against decorum; and decorum means "seemliness,' which comes from soemr, "fitting,' and soema, "to honor.' 9/11, 7/7: who or what decided that particular acts of slaughter, particular whirlwinds of plasma and body parts, in which a random sample of the innocent is killed, maimed, or otherwise crippled in body and mind, deserve a numerical shorthand? Whom does this "honor'? What makes this "fitting'?"

Reader "John Drinkwater" chimed in:

Yep. Great example of how obnoxious Amis is, and not exceptional, either. That's how he always writes. He's easily more pretentious than even David Brooks.

Between emails and comments and tweets, Amis got nearly twenty nominations, which surprised me – I personally had never read him and had no idea he aroused such powerful feelings. If it's possible to grab someone's coat lapel and implore/beg via email, that's what many readers who were afraid that Amis might not top this list did with me. One emailer, "James Farrady," put it this way: "You're going to be tempted to put Friedman or Brooks or Ayn Rand in first place, but if you do that, it will be an insult to everyone who's ever had to read a Martin Amis book. You owe it to the victims to put Amis at the top." He attached this clip of Amis saying Adolf Hitler was a "frightful bore" and a classic example of the artist manque:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7V4xOQHQPzM

Anyway, if Bet, Drinkwater and Farrady could please write in with their addresses, we'll send your copy of Moral Man and Immoral Society. Write to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it and we'll send those out this week.

Why Do They Hate Us?

By Glenn Greenwald, Guardian UK

26 December 12

 

Numerous individual events from this week alone signify important trends in US government policy.

his week will likely entail light posting, but here are several items worthy of note:

(1) I can't recall any one news article that so effectively conveys both the gross immorality and the strategic stupidity of Obama's drone attacks as this one from Monday's Washington Post by Sudarsan Raghavan. It details how the US-supported Yemeni dictatorship lies to its public each time the US kills Yemeni civilians with a drone attack, and how these civilian-killing attacks are relentlessly (and predictably) driving Yemenis to support al-Qaida and devote themselves to anti-American militancy:

"Since the attack, militants in the tribal areas surrounding Radda have gained more recruits and supporters in their war against the Yemeni government and its key backer, the United States. The two survivors and relatives of six victims, interviewed separately and speaking to a Western journalist about the incident for the first time, expressed willingness to support or even fight alongside AQAP, as the al-Qaeda group is known.

"'Our entire village is angry at the government and the Americans,' Mohammed said. 'If the Americans are responsible, I would have no choice but to sympathize with al-Qaeda because al-Qaeda is fighting America.'

"Public outrage is also growing as calls for accountability, transparency and compensation go unanswered amid allegations by human rights activists and lawmakers that the government is trying to cover up the attack to protect its relationship with Washington. Even senior Yemeni officials said they fear that the backlash could undermine their authority.

"'If we are ignored and neglected, I would try to take my revenge. I would even hijack an army pickup, drive it back to my village and hold the soldiers in it hostages,' said Nasser Mabkhoot Mohammed al-Sabooly, the truck's driver, 45, who suffered burns and bruises. 'I would fight along al-Qaeda's side against whoever was behind this attack.'"

Similarly, the LA Times has a long article on drone attacks in Yemen and quotes Ahmed al Zurqua, an expert on Islamic militants, explaining the obvious: "The drones have not killed the real Al Qaeda leaders, but they have increased the hatred toward America and are causing young men to join Al Qaeda to retaliate."

History will surely record that one of the most moronic collective questions ever posed is "Why do they hate us?" - where the "they" are: "those we continuously bomb and kill and whose dictators we prop up." Noting the two US drone attacks on December 24 in his country, the 23-year-old Yemeni writer Ibrahim Mothana asked: "Two US drone strikes in Yemen today. Should we consider them a Christmas gift?!" That's exactly what al-Qaida undoubtedly considers them to be.

(2) Speaking of the "why-do-they-hate-us?" question, the Bahraini democracy activist Zainab al-Khawaja has a powerful Op-Ed in the New York Times detailing the extreme brutality and repression of the regime against its own citizens, and explaining the self-destructive though steadfast support for that regime by the US and its close Saudi allies:

"But despite all these sacrifices, the struggle for freedom and democracy in Bahrain seems hopeless because Bahrain's rulers have powerful allies, including Saudi Arabia and the United States.

"For Bahrainis, there doesn't seem to be much of a difference between the Saudis and the Americans. Both are supporting the Khalifa regime to preserve their own interests, even if the cost is the lives and rights of the people of Bahrain.

"The United States speaks about supporting human rights and democracy, but while the Saudis send troops to aid the Khalifa government, America is sending arms. The United States is doing itself a huge disservice by displaying such an obvious double standard toward human rights violations in the Middle East. Washington condemns the violence of the Syrian government but turns a blind eye to blatant human rights abuses committed by its ally Bahrain.

"This double standard is costing America its credibility across the region; and the message being understood is that if you are an ally of America, then you can get away with abusing human rights."

With rare exceptions, the only people delusional and naive enough to believe the US is serious about its "commitment-to-human-rights" rhetoric - as opposed to exploiting human rights concerns as a tool to undermine regimes it dislikes - are found in the west. In the regions where the US enthusiastically supports even the most repressive regimes provided those regimes show fealty to US dictates, the stench of this hypocrisy, of this radical dishonesty, is so potent that it cannot be evaded.

But it is an extraordinary testament to the power of propaganda that one constantly finds westerners claiming with a straight face that the same country that hugs and props up the Saudis, the Bahrainis, the Qataris, the Kuwaitis and so many others is committed to undermining tyranny and spreading freedom and democracy. Or, as Hillary Clinton put it in 2009: "I really consider President and Mrs. Mubarak to be friends of my family."

(3) The long-time Berlin correspondent for Al Jazeera, Aktham Suliman, recently resigned, and he explains in this rather amazing interview that he did so because the regime in Qatar, which owns the network, has been increasingly shaping and dictating the news network's coverage of events to advance the regime's interests. In particular, he cites Al Jazeera's coverage of the conflicts in Libya and Syria which, he says, has been systematically distorted in order to justify the wars which the Qataris seek against the dictators in those countries which they dislike:

"Of course Muammar Gadhafi was a dictator, and of course he'd ruled for far too long. Of course there was a desire among the Libyans to get rid of him. All that is clear. But it's also clear that killing a dictator, as happened with Gadhafi, is absolutely unacceptable on human rights grounds, revolution or no. And that's not emphasized. That is: We stressed the necessity of a revolution in Libya and the humanity of the revolutionaries, but said nothing about the murder of a dictator.

"What should also give us pause for thought is that it wasn't just Gadhafi who was killed. Many others were killed after him - including, incidentally, the man who shot Gadhafi. He was killed by another group of revolutionaries. That's the actual environment in Libya. And that's exactly what you don't see on today's Al Jazeera. That's not professional.

"In Syria, too, society is divided. You have the pro-Assad people, and those who are against him. However, when you make one side out to be mass murderers and turn the others into saints you're fueling the conflict, not presenting the situation in an appropriate and balanced way. There are murders, injustices and good things on both sides. But you don't see that on Al Jazeera. My problem is and was: When I see Al Jazeera's Syrian coverage, I don't really understand what's going on there. And that's the first thing I expect from journalism."

As was true of Saddam, there is no question that Gadhafi and Assad have committed atrocities. But just as was true in Iraq, that does not justify the grossly simplistic propaganda that distorts rather than clarifies what the realities in those countries are.

(4) Documents just obtained from the FBI by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund reveal, as the New York Times put it, that "the [FBI] used counterterrorism agents to investigate the Occupy Wall Street movement, including its communications and planning" and in general show "how deeply involved federal law-enforcement authorities were in monitoring the activities of the movement." The heavily redacted documents, which can be read here, reveal numerous instances of the FBI collaborating with local police forces and private corporations to monitor and anticipate the acts of the protest movement.

As obviously disturbing as it is, none of this should be surprising. Virtually every seized power justified over the last decade in the name of "terrorism" has been applied to a wide range of domestic dissent. The most significant civil liberties trend of the last decade, in my view, is the importation of War on Terror tactics onto US soil, applied to US citizens - from the sprawling Surveillance State and powers of indefinite detention to the para-militarization of domestic police forces and the rapidly emerging fleet of drones now being deployed in countless ways. As I've argued previously, the true purpose of this endless expansion of state power in the name of "terrorism" is control over anticipated domestic protest and unrest.

It should be anything but surprising that the FBI - drowning in counter-terrorism money, power and other resources - will apply the term "terrorism" to any group it dislikes and wants to control and suppress (thus ushering in all of the powers institutionalized against "terrorists"). Those who supported (or acquiesced to) this expansion of unaccountable government power because they assumed it would only be used against Those Muslims not only embraced a morally warped premise (I care about injustices only if they directly affect me), but also a factually false one, since abuses of power always - always - expand beyond their original application.

(5) At the excellent online journal Jadaliyya, Max Ajl has a very interesting essay that presents a much different view on the debate over the Chuck Hagel nomination specifically, and on US policy toward Iran and Israel more broadly. I don't necessarily endorse his argument, but it's well-argued, provocative and highly worth reading.

(6) After film critics almost unanimously gushed over Zero Dark Thirty and showered it with every accolade they could get their hands on, the list of writers, commentators, officials and others who have denounced the film for its favorable (and false) depiction of torture has grown quite rapidly. Here is the most updated list of just some of those critics; if you read just one of these essays, I'd recommend this by Oscar-winning filmmaker Alex Gibney.

In an LA Times Op-Ed strongly condemning the film, Terry McDermott reports that, at one point, FBI agents were chasing around geese in Central Park because Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, under torture, had told his CIA interrogators that al-Qaida "had explosives stuffed up their ass". Had Zero Dark Thirty included a depiction of that scene, it at least would have been mildly more entertaining, offering some redeeming value for this film. As is, there is basically none.