Letters to the Editor
-Mona-
Published Letters: 842 Editor's Choice: 1
-
@DCutler
[Read the article: If only Newt Gingrich were president]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I somewhat agree with you, that some hardnosed talk of the type you describe does go in in the type of crisis involved. But Newt was not about looking for a diplomatic solution; he was pursuing escalation. You don't approach the other party in such a tense situation and tell them how tiny they are and will look if they don't do what you say.
There was nothing in his comments that suggested the intelligent deliberations and strategizing that went on during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
-
Most utterly excellent
[Read the article: National journalists believe you should trust them]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn's being able to obtain interviews such as this.
Peabody Shmeabody. And Walter Duranty won the Pulitzer. Hasn't kept history from eviscerating Duranty and the NYT for publishing him -- his "sources" weren't, in the end, too very credible either.
Same with modern times. The media is an incestuous elite that makes these awards one unto each other. They will not hold collective sins against any of their own, and may even -- it is human nature -- be reluctant to reward any of the few who behaved like actual journalists in the run-up to invading Iraq.
-
Hinderaker re: Glenn (sort of)
[Read the article: National journalists believe you should trust them]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It must be very strange to be Glenn Greenwald. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.
Hyperbolic? Well, maybe. But consider Greenwald's latest master stroke:
And let's re-cap again the vaunted ABC "vetting" process that distinguishes them from those reckless, unreliable bloggers: "Former UN weapons inspectors have told ABC News they've been told the anthrax spores found in the letter to Senator Daschle are almost identical in appearance to those they recovered in Iraq in 1994."
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/011183.php
-
Jim C is best ignored
[Read the article: The American media's fringe ideological view of Pelosi's trip]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ok, so I took a click over to Jim C's blog. He hosts a graphic with an Israeli flag morphing into an American one, and the caption under it reads: "We support Israel..." with a citation to Genesis 12:3 -- "And I will bless them that bless thee."
If he is not a Xian Zionist, he is doing a fine imitation of one. He is clearly out of his depth with this Logan Act nonsense (he has a vacuous post about that at his site as well), and I suggest it is best to ignore him. He may be sincere rather than a purposeful troll, but he is ignorant and functioning at an elementary level that would lower the quality of discourse here if frequently engaged.
-
@Paul Rosenberg re: JimC
[Read the article: The American media's fringe ideological view of Pelosi's trip]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]They'll do anything to distract attention, now won't they?
Well, in fairness I started all this by pointing out that a trip to Jim C's blog was illuminating of his mindset, motives and level of analysis -- and then another reader here further explored the blog and posted Jim C's atavistic views on homosexuality. Jim himself did not introduce the subject.
But he is clearly a Xian Zionist, Bush supporter and all-around high Right-Wing Authoritarian. He is almost certainly among those for whom reasoned dialogue is futile and can only frustrate any attempting it, and it would detract from more productive conversation here.
-
@JimC
[Read the article: The American media's fringe ideological view of Pelosi's trip]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]and then when I respond, you gripe that *I changed the subject????*
I already pointed out that you did no such thing. Chalk it up to people not following the thread flow properly.
The bigger problem is that you are operating from a mindset that is as authoritarian as it is simplistic and driven by whatever memes your fellow authoritarians are pushing at the moment -- which currently are preposterous fixations on Nancy Pelosi's head gear and...unsophisticated discussions of the Logan Act. And, you did link/invite to your site, some of us looked and found your views on homosexuality, which are truly vile as well as ridiculous.
-
@Paul Rosenberg
[Read the article: The right-wing brain in action]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Outstanding discussion of Altemeyer's work. No doubt I'll be finding occasion to link to and discuss that -- really excellent post.
-
LGF Inquiry
[Read the article: The right-wing brain in action]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]LGF Inquiry
Relatively on topic: I am in a bit of a spat with the only neocon-friendly writer at Reason (and his supporters), who has posted an idiotic compendium of media criticism of Pelosi and actually approvingly links to LGF and commends its comments section. That's all going on here: http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119545.html#comments
If anyone has a link to a concise discussion of the heinousness of the LGF comments section, please let me know (Johnson has cleansed wiki, the entry on him is virtual hagiography). That site went batshit insane over Pelosi's headscarf, and refused to admit how absurd that is in light of the fact that even Laura Bush hijabs herself when visiting mosques. In any case, I could make use of intelligent dissections of LGF and its comments section.
-
@mattrhames
[Read the article: Response from ABC News re: the Saddam-anthrax reports]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So he starts with a you're-not-a-real-journalistic because you didn't contact me or do research, you know, to put you in your place. Clearly, he thinks a response would simply be exciting enough for a 'blogger'.
It is just that dynamic that I find so pleasurable in this whole matter. The over-arching and important thing, of course, is that Glenn's voice is one of the loudest and most persuasive of several demanding some standards and accountability in our infotainment "news" media. But this ABC flak seems not to get that Glenn, by all appearances is, on the one hand, not particularly out to get ABC, but on the other, totally and utterly unimpressed that they are (genuflecting) ABC. For real. Like, some of us really feel that way -- which I know is incomprehensible to them.
Glenn keeps showing them their errors, and they persist in acting as if all they need to do in rebuttal is sputter, b-b-b-b-ut Peabody Award...ABC.. We are ABC!!!!