Letters to the Editor
Holly McLachlan
Published Letters: 543 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Where are these rational actors you speak of?
[Read the article: Bad stenographers]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The core question in assessing Time's coverage (or Salon's for that matter) is "does it sell ads?" If it does, it's doing its job. So, maybe I should clarify slightly: all media where the producer is _paid_ is done, at the core, for the money.
Your blog is the same: Salon took it on because it sells enough ads to justify your salary, given the demographics of your readers. If it didn't, it wouldn't, and you'd go back to publishing directly, where you solely get the upside from Google ad revenue if you attract readers. --cestmoi123
The actions taken by Klein and his editors over the past few days are not reasonably attributable to the search for profits; they are much more a function of swollen egos than rational profit-maximizing behavior.
They have been insulting the natural core audience for their of product (political analysis) since 11/21. In the context of "money!!!" their behavior has been relentlessly stupid. I suspect that is part of what has Glenn so flabbergasted. -
Statements of Fact
[Read the article: Bad stenographers]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... for eight days now, Klein has been bashed for presenting an opinion deemed wrong. While Glenn may be a fine lawyer, he is only able to present a countering opinion, which is certainly contestable.
Glenn first eviscerated Klein over the numerous factual errors in his article. Klein was inaccurate about this legislation, and he premised his condemnation of Democratic "ideological purity" on his inaccurate reading of the text of the bill. As the lerpa demonstrated, (Permalink Wednesday, November 28, 2007 12:11 PM), this bill does not force the federal government to obtain warrants in order to spy on non-U.S. communications.
That Republicans and Democrats can disagree about the practical effect of a bill is not arguable. Criticizing the lack of consultation with Dem staff is fair, but in the scheme of the original piece, less crucial than the Republican talking points sought. Why? Because the original piece was about how being "correct" is hurting the Dems.
And Klein's assertion that the Dems were being correct to fault was premised on a nonfactual statement (see above).
I'm not defending Klein, I'm happily pointing out that Glenn et. al. are sabotaging the entire structure of the general agenda for one smallish point. On one hand I'm happy to stand aside and watch you folks commit fratricide, on the other it's this kind of refusal to acknowledge the messiness of reality that causes all sorts of grief for the rest of us. -- shooter242
1) You are defending Klein, in this forum, for the purpose of pushing falsehoods -- about the bill in question, about the Democrats in Congress, and about the present nature of the opposition to this wayward administration.
2) I am not "you folks", as true ole time liberals like Timberman will confirm. Neither is prunes, Svensker, nor quite a few other repeat commenters.
3) Glenn Greenwald is not a "made man" in the "liberal Mafia" either, shooter242.
Your purpose in continuously asserting otherwise in this forum is grounded in your desire to poison the minds of readers -- by use of the old propaganda technique of repetition, repetition, repetition. If you repeat your non-factual assertions enough, you reckon they will attain some air of validity, at least among the weak-minded.They will not.
-
Couldn't follow one thing:
[Read the article: Time tries again]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Furthermore, only this kind of source would have assumed the bill was quashed by Pelosi, rather than that it did not exist. -- ondelette
I agree with Jordan Orlando; you have an incredible grasp of this stuff. I haven't even read through the House FISA bill, much less the Leahy Senate version. But, why did you say that above about Klein's likely source? Why would an NSA-connected individual make this assumption?
-
Peter Hoekstra (R., Mendacity)
[Read the article: Time tries again]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Funny how the article Mr Hoekstra has now posted makes it easier to deconstruct what happened. All the lies he told Joe are now reprinted in one convenient package. Do we think he's trying to draw fire or simply reinforce the lies among the faithful? -- Paul Dirks
Both. It's a twofer. But, you've got to love the way he frames the "debate" that he's willing to engage in:
Rep. Hoekstra:"At the end of the day, we should be honest that this is not a legal debate, but a political one.
Bravo. A minor piece of truth, immediately followed by the propaganda:
Rep. Hoekstra: It highlights the fact that Democrats believe that lawyering-up foreign intelligence to guard against every imagined or potential civil-liberties concern is more important than ensuring that we have the full capability to conduct quick and effective surveillance of foreign al-Qaeda targets in foreign countries. I’ll welcome that debate anytime."
For some reason, I find this sort of smooth lie-propagation much more angering when it is done by an obviously competent individual like Rep. Hoekstra. His gracious admission of reality regarding the political nature of this entire brou-ha-ha is rather beside the point, given that his article is just one more salvo in that political "debate".
-
IANAL
[Read the article: Time tries again]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act other than subsection (a) -- The RESTORE Act, 105(b)
Birdman98, a letter writer (the lerpa) analyzed this bit last night. His reading was that 105(a) takes precedence over 105(b), given what is bold-faced above. 105(a) appears to provide broad leeway for surveillance of foreign targets, with a reasonably broad definition of what is a foreign target. If the English used in writing laws has any meaning in common with English used by the laity, then that is the correct interpretation.
If. I'll leave to the lawyers here to explain why and how none of these words mean what they do in the common tongue.