Letters to the Editor
Reilly
Published Letters: 379
-
@CarolynC and GlennGreewald's relpy
[Read the article: The Lawless Surveillance State]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]CarolynC,
Thanks for the Arendt quote via Chalmers and your added insights. Perhaps that "curious, quite authentic inability to think" explains why many of the same politicians and media stars who couldn't restate enough during the Impeachment Years that "we are a nation of laws, not men", and who couldn't repeat "rule of law" enough times on the endless panels assembled on Larry King and elsewhere, seem now unable to grasp in meaning and immeadiacy the "staggering" - as Glenn stated - "scope and breadth of domestic spying".
Glenn wrote;
All excellent observations. Tyrannical leaders of other countries get demonized into absurd caricatures, stick figure cartoon villains. So as long as people don't see those absurd images here, they tacitly assume that everything is fundamentally different, even when the behavior is the same.
Absloutely right, but those tyrannical leaders "get demonized " by narratives provided by the Right-Wing and fixed into public consciencness by the media. That's why Chavez is a caricature and Musharraf isn't. I'm not defending anyone here but it's clear that if Chavez had done what Musharraf did in declaring a state of emergency and enacting those draconian measures that he did, the media reaction would have been drastically different because the media's driving force, the Right-Wing noise machine, would have demanded it.
My broader point in relation to your comment is this: that same process, as you are already aware, is the driving force behind how our politicians become characterized domestically. People don't see those absurd images here, with George Bush in office, because neither the consequences of actions nor fundamental principles are the driving foce behind the behavior of our media - Right-Wing power is. It doesn't take much imagination to see how fundamentally different the entire discussion might be if Al Gore or John Kerry were in power, but those are the two who became the "absurd caricature" while the closest president we've ever had to actually being a "stick figure cartoon" was treated by the press and advertised to us as a man of inherent greatness and nobility.
-
Lieberman - Matthews' Naomi Wolf
[Read the article: No Democrat wanted Joe Lieberman's endorsement]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn,
This seems like a petty thing to note but it gave me a laugh.
This is part of that same exchange between Matthews and Lieberman:
MATTHEWS: Right. Does Hadassah ever give you hell for wearing that turtle—that crewneck sweater? Because I noticed all three of you gentlemen, all about my age, are all up there in New Hampshire wearing crewneck sweaters.
LIEBERMAN: Yes.
MATTHEWS: My wife gives me nothing but hell about crewneck sweaters.
LIEBERMAN: Well...
MATTHEWS: She says they make you look fat and everything else. Why are you all three guys wearing crewneck sweaters? Let‘s take a look at this. Is this a youth vote effort by you three guys?
LIEBERMAN: No, I would say it was a matter of necessity. It was very cold in New Hampshire this morning. And I will also directly answer your provocative question. Hadassah loves that red crewneck sweater.
(LAUGHTER)
MATTHEWS: Well, Merry Christmas to you!
What made me laugh was tuning into Matthews' show the next day and seeing him wearing a striped crewneck sweater. I guess Lieberman's fashion advice trumps Chris' wife.
And all this from the guy who made Al Gore's wardrobe choices a major issue of his electability. And specifically that Al Gore switched to wearing sweaters. And further specifically the fact that someone had supposedly given Gore the idea to wear those sweaters which proved Gore wasn't his own man and didn't know who he was. Of course it was a woman - Naomi Wolf - who supposedly influenced Gore's fashion choices, not a party-crossing independent rebel hawk like Lieberman.
And of course between oogeling the presidents' crotch on national television and getting down with some mano-a-mano apparel tips with his favorite neocon, the man refered to in some quarters as 'mancrush' Matthews always has enough time to pose his favorite question: "How come the Democrats run so many weird candidates?"
-
Suggestion
[Read the article: Journalistic balance vs. truth]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Nice contribution by Steven Greene. I know it would be time consuming and expensive but a meticulously researched analysis of the same time frames that Greene used would be an enormously important weapon against this journalistic abuse and might also be enlightening to the many people on the left who unfortunately have been completely taken in by "journalistic balance".
While it is very likely that for the 2005 year, the hits for 'filibuster' probably do match up with all the corresponding legislation - for 2007, as Glenn noted in his update, other key phrases and words would have to be included. Or perhaps an actual timeline of legislation for both those years could be constructed and the search of both newspapers conducted around those dates.
Why don't you get on that Glenn. You don't seem to have too much on your plate lately.
Seriously I would be more than happy to contribute money to such a project.
By the way we know for sure that at least a few of the hits for 'filibuster' for 2007 are for Democrats, as we just had the heroic stand of Senator Dodd which would be included in those numbers.
-
Collaborator ...
[Read the article: Reid and company target the true enemy: "Dodd and his allies"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]would now be the proper characterization of Harry Reid's relationship with the Bush administration.
Regarding this:
Though crediting activists for their "passion," Pelosi called it "a waste of time" for them to target Democrats. "They are advocates," she said. "We are leaders."
Pelosi crediting activists for their "passion" with barely hidden disdain for their efforts as "a waste of time" reminded me of this Cheney quote:
"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy,"
In Washington they tip their hat to your good intentiions just before they spit on them.
I guess an advocate is just a lobbyist without the power or the money, and the question many of our political leaders have is this; "Why the hell did you show up with a satchel full of passion?"