Letters to the Editor
PaulBC
Published Letters: 207 Editor's Choice: 24
-
MoveOn has been sufficiently denounced and it's not the job of Democrats
[Read the article: "I'm the C student, and just look at who's the president"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Bush: "I was disappointed that not more leaders in the Democrat Party spoke out strongly against [MoveOn's ad]"
By this logic, suppose I should be "disappointed" that the GOP isn't issuing daily press releases to denounce and disassociate themselves from the likes of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. It's not going to happen. It's not their priority, and it shouldn't be their priority.
Sometimes I think nobody grasps the principle of advocacy. In a certain kind of idealized rational world there might be objectivity and a search for the real truth. This is the world approximated by peer-reviewed research (usually not very well). In the world the rest of us inhabit, it doesn't work that way. Instead, you pick your side and you fight for it as hard as you can. You let somebody else fight their battle. Even our judicial system is based on the notion of advocacy rather than any pretense towards objectivity. Democrats aren't here to fight Bush's battle for him, and I assume a man with the rank of general can stand up for himself.
I'm not sure whether MoveOn's ad is likely to backfire (my gut reaction) or may actually have the intended effect of influencing people through a tasteless pun. In the latter case, more power to them. I have nothing personal against Gen. Petraeus, but if it takes a schoolyard taunt to get people's attention, then it's a pretty small price to pay.
-
sounds like GOP is preparing to run against Hillary
[Read the article: White House: Obama too "intellectually lazy" to work here]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Bush also told Sammon that he expects Hillary Clinton to be the nominee. Of course, you could read this several different ways, including the interpretation that Bush is just spouting off on what he knows nothing about. But there is some logic in preferring Hillary. They already have their playbook written for running against her. Obama is more of an unknown and may turn out to be difficult to smear.
On another topic, why does Salon allow anonymous posting, which is invariably used for trolling rather than any legitimate reason (e.g. relating some kind of sensitive or personal information confidentially). Assuming Salon plans to keep anonymous posting, it would be good to have a setting that would filter it out. These letters almost never improve the level of discourse.
Yes, it's true (looked it up) that in Feb. 2007, Salon made the unfortunate choice of using the word "uppity" to describe Obama as follows: ""Today he drips with charisma and inspires fawning admiration from all quarters. But Obama began his journey as an uppity young man with little political future." They also switched it to "smug" soon after. Clearly it was a mistake to use that word, and clearly fixing it on the sly was a bad approach given the exposure it had already received. On the other hand, it's doubtful any malice was intended, and they did fix it after all.
But you can look at it however you want. You can even post snarkily about it as "Anonymous" did. But look, I can post this and attach my name to it. What conceivable reason would there be to make the comment anonymously? About the only reason I can think (aside from naked cowardice) is to hide the presence of a systematic letter writing campaign that would be revealed by posting with an identity.
-
I think this was handled badly
[Read the article: Lee Bollinger's big moment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not exactly sure why Ahmadinejad was invited in the first place. I see it is part of a "World Leaders Forum", but clearly there are plenty of others to choose from.
Given that Ahmadinejad was invited, Bollinger's remarks show exceptionally poor taste. I'm not sure about the "modern" civilized world, but throughout much of history, a great measure of civility was how one treated a guest. If you're not prepared to be courteous to a guest, don't invite them. It's that simple.
I can think of a number of ways to handle this that would have shown more class. The first would have been be to ask why you want someone to speak in front of a hostile audience, and then make the decision to invite somebody else (this is no more censorship than refusing to invite me to Columbia to read excerpts from my Salon comments to an audience of chirping crickets). Another would just be to bite the bullet and accept the now unwanted guest graciously come what may. A third would be to add a polite but firm disclaimer, noting that Columbia does not endorse the comments of the speaker. This could be followed by a more vitriolic speech after the guest has left.
I really think Bollinger took the coward's way out. Clearly, he wanted to deflect attacks by the "Oceania has always been at war with Persia" faction but somehow claim to be a champion of free speech. Maybe he impressed somebody with this self-contradictory approach, but all it says to me is that an invitation to speak at Columbia is not necessarily what it appears to be and Bollinger is not a person I would trust in any situation involving an implied contract.