Letters to the Editor
William Timberman
Published Letters: 3298 Editor's Choice: 7
-
Wit
[Read the article: The people who claim "the surge is working"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When I first read Norquist's bathtub quote, and also the one which compared Democrats to gelded farm animals, I have to admit that I didn't find them offensive. I found them clever, unequivocal, and more useful in some respects than a series of policy statements could ever be in clarifying what he's been up to all these years. To the extent that metaphors help clarify how deeply we're divided, neither he nor we need apologize for them. That, at least, is my opinion.
The problem with such hardball politics, of course, is that reducing complex issues to a series of pithy metaphors, and resorting to propaganda and dirty tricks to secure an electoral advantage, often obscures rather than clarifies our underlying differences, and makes essential policy making even more difficult than it already is, especially when our differences are based on fundamentally different world-views.
I don't mind trading insults, but I'd also like to make a discussion of what makes liberalism such an anathema to Mr. Norquist more open and available to a wider range of voters. He, of course, would prefer not to have his reasons known, particularly if it helps him to mischaracterize ours. This he considers a legitimate political strategy, but then he's no democrat.
I remember laying out for daleyrocks in a thread long ago, when he was resorting to his customary pompous sophistry that liberals lack a plan, a few of the foundations of a truly liberal policy alternative, and asking him how it differed from his.
His response was that this was neither the time nor the place for theoretical discussions, that his purpose here was just to have a little fun. Well, of course, Glenn's blog isn't the place for policy papers as such, but you can't exactly expect anyone to accept your bona fides in an argument if you'll never say what you believe and defend it against criticism. This is tactics masquerading as strategy, and while the pundits may applaud it, ultimately the people for whom policy differences have real consequences will not.
So by all means, geld liberals and drown Grover in the bathtub if you must, but don't neglect what makes us different either.
-
Not a change for the better
[Read the article: If only Newt Gingrich were president]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't mind the permanent username, although I will miss bebop's occasional metamorphoses.
Let me add to the chorus of boos about the new typeface, though, and the lack of visible paragraph processing in preview mode. I'm going to force it with double BR tags in this, and pray that I don't wind up with two spaces between the paragraphs when I hit the publish button.
I wonder what Salon thought was broken, and why this had to be the fix.
-
Ugh!
[Read the article: If only Newt Gingrich were president]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well, that didn't work out so well, did it?
Let's try it without the tags.
-
My considered opinion
[Read the article: If only Newt Gingrich were president]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This sucks, Salon, truly it does, especially when composing longer comments. I guess I'll just have to go back to previewing in my own text editor.
-
Lest we forget
[Read the article: If only Newt Gingrich were president]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sysprog, thank you for the reminder. I was never much of a fan of Clinton's apertura alla destra, but at least he was/is an adult, and had/has given the future of America and Americans some serious thought. Newt, on the other hand, has always behaved as the petulant teenager, the boy who read too many books and learned virtually nothing from them, nor, for that matter from the people around him.
-
Irrelevant
[Read the article: National journalists believe you should trust them]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Jeffrey Schneider holds himself and his news organization in high esteem, and sees no reason why we shouldn't also. After all, etc.....
It's that after all which is so disingenuous. One has to wonder whether he's watched ABC News himself for the past 20 years. If he had, he'd know perfectly well why none of us would ever take what he says about his ABC's credibility at face value.
-
Tests
[Read the article: National journalists believe you should trust them]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The dominant narrative should always be tested at its weakest points. When done correctly, this doesn't require the guidance of pundits, nor much in the way of journalistic raw material.
For example, what could cause hundreds, perhaps thousands of people to turn themselves into bombs? Are they inherently evil? (Assuming they're human, this is unlikely) Do they have a grievance? If so, what sort of grievance might make so many people resort to self-immolation? (Now we're getting warmer.)
Has the U.S. engaged in activities, reported or unreported, which might have given such people reason to feel that aggrieved? If so, what might those policies have been, and what purposes might they have been intended to serve? (Presumably they weren't intended to cause people to turn themselves into bombs.) Is there another sort of policy which might achieve the intended ends without creating such an obscene form of collateral damage?
If we were to do this sort of analysis whenever presented with a concept like Islamofascism for our delectation and amusement, perhaps it wouldn't matter whether or not most journalists were careerist sycophants.
-
Me too
[Read the article: National journalists believe you should trust them]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Same town, similar circumstances, about a year later. In fairness to the reporter, he literally didn't know what he was looking at, and relied for his interpretation on the narrative he brought with him.
You want things to change, you have to start with what things mean. (And, of course, once started you can't ever, ever stop.)