Letters to the Editor
softdog
Published Letters: 186 Editor's Choice: 8
-
@weeping for brunnhilde - no need to apologize
[Read the article: George Bush is John McCain's Rev. Wright]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"I don't really like the personal nature of your attacks on Joan Walsh either. If you disagree with her ideas or policies, then be more specific about which and how you disagree."
I have been, and so have many, many others. Repeatedly, day in and day out. That the concrete issues so many of us have been raising are ignored is the reason I'm succumbing to frustration.
weeping: you have no reason to apologize or explain.
The accusation was trying to deflect legitimate criticism using loaded terms which avoid the point.
The entire issue is Walsh's actions, which means discussion of her methods, attitudes and journalstic integrity - calling these things personal doesn't make it off limits.
Plus Joan's writing is on the character of Obama and his supporters - their integrity, wisdom, competence, gender bias etc. She uses occasionaly florid language. This means she can be judged on similar terms.
It's wise if to be more fair in the rebuttal, but they don't to declare themselves immune from character issues they raised.
Joan's acolytes fail to notice this. They can dish it out but they can't take it.
-
@ damnthatxanadu
[Read the article: George Bush is John McCain's Rev. Wright]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Ah, here is all the Obamaborg once again stating how Joan "has a right to her own opinions" out of one side of their mouths all the way screaming for her to "assimilate" to the Obama propaganda theology..."
Actually, no. As many have repeatedly pointed out, it is the false pose of objectivity, how much her bias affects the site overall and the transparent stirring of reader outrage on both sides.
If Joan was upfront about her her preference for criticizing Obama while defending Clinton it would not be as irksome. It would be nice if the site gave a closer examination of Clinton's problems (the Iran quotes, the robo calls, Mark Penn) even as they defended her.
It would be great if Salon was as hard or harder on McCain - or covered a wider range of issues as it used to.
It is the laziness, narrow focus and dishonesty combined with the bias which bugs people. You can be ready to vote for Clinton and still feel that way.
-
Dissent against self-inflicted snobbery is lame.
[Read the article: You are not your bookcase]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If Megan bothered to look, there's thousands of online self-help blogs and networks. Hell, did she not notice the huge audience for Cary Tennis on this site? I guess such things don't count as they would spoil her thesis of people shamed into hiding their opinions.
Megan Hustad commits the common sin of confusing personal gripes with the zeitgeist.
She can't read a book from an opposing viewpoint without worrying someone will assume she agrees with it. This is goofy self-hating snobbery depends on other people knowing what you read. Hint to Megan - nothing forces you to display your choices.
Self-flattering self-disclosure is the norm in life, especially online. This isn't sinister or snobbish, but normal.
Does Megan really believe otherwise? Or is she projecting her own anxieties into social analysis?
"He was saying that if I'd decided a book had nothing to offer me before I'd read a single word, then perhaps I wasn't as cosmopolitan as I liked to imagine I was." True, but that's your problem Megan. "When I started asking around, I found that quite a few people were consuming "off-message" books, but only in the privacy of their own homes." Yes, because many people, even young ones, don't feel the need to reveal everything. Self-help often deals with personal territory is something people might hesitate to share.
What's really going on in the article is not Megan's fear of being judged but her need to judge everyone else.
Thus she redefines other people's list making as having dishonest, sinister or corrupt motives. Megan's discomfort can't possiby her own problem - it's those others deluded by online memes which she has no obligation to read.
I'll admit I buy into ideas of cultural contamination at times, but this one is particularly reactionary and self-serving.
Her defense of Grover Norquist assumes those hissing him are unfamiliar with his ideas or words - perhaps they understand him so easily they've lost patience with his B.S.
Honestly Megan, grow up. Notice people other than yourself and maybe you'd see what you consider outre is the norm.
It's not surprising Salon has an essay which is unable to distinguish real dissent and ostracism from the faux anxiety of someone who considers certain books beneath them.