Letters to the Editor
Holly McLachlan
Published Letters: 472 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Unkind hyperbole does not equate to slander
[Read the article: Responsibility for the last seven years]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not sure [officials who engage in torture] should always be punished. But neither do I want to see the apparatus of the legal system turned to codifying, regulating, and normalizing torture . . . It should happen in dark rooms, at risk to the lives and careers of the men who carry it out, so that the hidden law will only trump the written law when times are truly desperate enough to call for such desperate measures. -- McArdle, 2003
In other words, [her position was that] there should be no official policy or sanction of torture by the government. [...]
Glenn, you should have stuck to your original subject. McArdle's pleas about being slandered were nonsense--until now.
-- Rob Mac
Rob Mac, regardless of whether you find her 2003 position to be common sense -- it is not in accord with her recent assertion that she has always been avowedly, completely against torture. It just doesn't. Therefore his statements do not qualify as slanderous. Unkind statements of fact are not slander.
Glenn's has been using McArdle and Drezner as examples in pursuit of his argument about the media elite in general. His argument has been that their opinions have shifted with time in a direction that is convenient to them, a direction that allows them to maintain their high positions and blow off their (limited but existent) responsibility for the lawless freakout that engulfed our nation in the first 1-2 years after 9-11.
Their is no reason why any of our national elites should be free of criticism at this point, on this topic. Elite status brings with it elite levels of responsibility. But....... these media types really don't want to have us see it that way.
I have not had the time to read Drezner's writing so I can't comment on Glenn vs. Drezner in an informed manner. But I read Glenn's initial link to Ms. McArdle's blog post -- and I was very unimpressed by her general tone. Contempt for the decency and capability of the average American poured off her blog page.
Her ad hominems were directed towards us in general -- us "little people" who can't be expected to read anything more taxing than the National Enquirer. Glenn's are directed toward specific high status individuals who have a venue from which to respond.
Her fundamental outlook, as expressed in that linked post, was so utterly contempt-worthy that it's tough for me to work up any sympathy on her behalf.
-
Ack!
[Read the article: Responsibility for the last seven years]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Cognitive dissonance, much? -- Hume's ghost
I can't tell. That was one of the most fearsome run-on-sentences I've ever seen.
-
BACK AT 'EM!
[Read the article: "Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Speaking of "Bitter"
After reading the comments, I notice they all fit that description, bitter. [...] one can get only so far with doom and gloom. It didn't work well for Carter.... -- shooter242You didn't notice all the comments were bitter -- you asserted it for the purpose of propaganda. Most of the comments were pretty damned chipper -- just like mine is going to be.
This "bitter" schtick is an old favorite of yours, shooter242, and I remember when it had a scrap of truth in it. It is derived from successful anti-liberal campaigns of the 70s and early 80s. There are still a few old folks who fall for it, but....
But one of the next commenters did a bang-up job of reminding us who the nattering nabobs of negativity are today:
[...] most Dems have no clue what has completely stolen the ability to frame ANY issue from them, since they don't listen to AM talk radio much. In any city or town in America, most people check in frequently with the local news talk radio station for any number of reasons. [...] even in the most liberal cities like Los Angeles, huge swaths are kept in [...] ignorance by simply listening to this redneck rightwing disinformation all day long. -- gregrocker
The high profile hyper-whiners are all on the far Right today. The naysayers, gloom-and-doom pants pissers -- they are the vanguard of the ultra-Right.
It is a great idea to remind folks as much as possible: the ultra-Rightists, the Republicans, are peevish, hunch-shouldered complainers.
Oh... they cloak it with a whole lotta braggart noise -- but when you listen to their words on the radio talk shows -- its just one snivel after another.
The eRUDEite op-ed columns of the think tank pretty boys are even worse -- they don't feel the need to hide their contempt for the average schmuck. They really should watch their words you know -- some of the 'little people' can read.
-
Ah, the intelligentsia..... or at least the made-for-TV version of it.....
[Read the article: "Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...their kinship with garden variety conservatives is revealed in their attitudes, virtually all of which are infused with such a contempt for the human comedy, and such an overestimation of their own humble place in it, that it sets my teeth on edge.
Just once, I'd like to hear a little charity in their pronouncements, Christian or otherwise. As it is, I find myself wishing the lot of them would someday get a very large dose of their own medicine... -- William TimbermanYes. That's it, and it's well said by you, as usual. A little charity in their pronouncements..... some faint indication that they're aware of their own human frailty.
But, they aren't.. and that's the whole problem, isn't it?