Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 360 Editor's Choice: 12
-
Off-topic. Patterico cites left wing hate speech
[Read the article: Neoconservative Eliot Cohen's new position at the State Department]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]mines the 80s and 90s looking for left wing hate speech. Clicking through to the first few sources, none go back to the original quotations, but are in compilations by right wing writers.
Still, you may want to take a look.
-
Clark's anecdote
[Read the article: Neoconservative Eliot Cohen's new position at the State Department]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Interesting. I heard the same story in almost exactly the same words from Clark at a talk he gave at the 92nd Street Y last week.
-
To some degree this is inevitable
[Read the article: The significance of the FBI's law-breaking]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Not to minimize or disagree what a profound violation this is of every principle enshrined in the Constitution, a big part of the problem here is that it's all too easy.
The physical requirements of wiretapping or of obtaining paper phone records served as a deterrent in the past. The fact that getting the data now is simply a matter of transferring a file over the internet makes it much harder to construct laws that will not be flouted.
Moreover, it's clear that people don't much care. There are effective encryption technology that anyone can use to prevent government interception of their messaging traffic. If this technology were widely used, it would be pretty effective in stopping the value of this kind of thing. Right now, because it's uncommonly used, the use of such technology is suspicious in itself and may lead to increased surveillance.
People hand personal data all the time to agencies that cannot be trusted with it, like drug store chains. If you use discount cards and frequently use credit cards, there is a rich data stream that, because it exists, will be used. Likewise if you use an electronic toll paying device or a cell phone, your movements can, and will, be tracked.
the convenience of these devices and services pretty clearly trump privacy concerns with the overwhelming majority of Americans.
-
"On the Record"
[Read the article: McCain takes the press for a bumpy ride]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Really? In 2000 did every single stupid thing he said, every single blunder and contradiction, every single mistake get run?
What he did in 2000 was take advantage of the fact that in today's journalistic world (as we learned during the Libby trial's investigation and testimony) is that everything is off the record by default. By saying he was on the record, all the time, he won the hearts of journalists, who protected him by not writing on the record comments that would have hurt him.
I think, anyway. Can the Michael Scherer weigh in and tell us that he heard no gaffes in 2000?
-
Systemic
[Read the article: Rove, proven liar]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is a systemic problem. For some reason, it's impossible for the press to use the word "lie." Yesterday, Charlie Gibson had an interview with Snow where Snow focused entirely on controlling the frame. He even used the words "narrative" and "frame" to push back against the characterization of the administration offer as a "chat" and pushed his frames of "show trial" and "OK Corral."
Gibson was clearly frustrated because Snow refused to answer questions about why this had to be private and why a transcript couldn't be created. But he could not say, for some reason I do not understand, that the reason we need open hearings and a transcript and an oath is that otherwise Rove will lie. I mean, what's hard about that? What makes the word "lie" unutterable?
-
Daily Howler has the goods
[Read the article: Follow-up to this morning's post re: Chris Matthews Show]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]has the goods on the punditocracy. Pulling a clip isn't helpful--it's too wide-ranging, but here's one about Ana Marie Cox on Swampland regarding last Saturday's SEIU presidential panel on health care:
[i]nane comments about Clinton’s manner of speaking are now the rage with this fatuous “press corps.” She drawls! No, she shouts! No, her voice is too screechy! Avoidance of substance has long been their dream. Cox employed the latest way to avoid.
What did Clinton say about health care? Absent-mindedly, Cox didn’t say; instead, she complained that Clinton talked too loud and walked around too much. For content, she offered a bit of brainless snark about that eight-year timetable. But then, this has been the norm for a very long time when serious Dems try to talk about health care. Cox is more potty-mouthed than some of her peers—but like them, she is eerily DUMB.
Let’s explain what you’re getting when you’re handed such insulting blather. You’re surveying the work of a criminal class—a group of overpaid, store-bought clowns who are paid their fantastic salaries precisely because they’re reliably fatuous. When Time hired Cox to head its web site, the magazine knew what it was getting; it was getting the most fatuous person who has emerged in “press” circles in recent years—a “dirty girl” who proved her good faith by endlessly talking about [anal sex] and her own luscious body during her Wonkette tenure. Corporate owners hire the Coxes because they’re such fools—and routinely, they get what they’ve paid for.
Why don’t these ciphers care about health care? Duh! Because they already have it! Margaret Carlson explained it long ago, in that remarkable exchange with Don Imus. For them, this is “fun,” “entertainment” and “sport.” For you, they’re a criminal enterprise.
-
Howler link
[Read the article: Follow-up to this morning's post re: Chris Matthews Show]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sorry, messed up the link on previous message
http://www.dailyhowler.com/
Forgot that links aren't allowed.