Letters to the Editor
Margalis
Published Letters: 614 Editor's Choice: 16
-
I've converted a conservative or two
[Read the article: McCain spokesman John King of CNN]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Although Bush being Bush did most of the work for me. I can't take much credit for that.
As far as correcting the behavior of misbehaving children, all I can say is that it worked on me. ;)
I suppose there is no harm in trying (other than opportunity cost) and I don't mind seeing this sort of stuff at the end of threads but it's annoying to see it on page 2 all the way to page 20.
I also think that when someone is clearly just trying to push buttons ("lol lefties are teh sux!") it's time to move on. At this point PW is posting the logical equivalent of "you smell." Not sure there is much to work with there.
-
By the way LWM that website is hilarious
[Read the article: McCain spokesman John King of CNN]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Talk about in-group lingo and bad arguments. Reminds of the old Simpson's episode where a Rush-type guy on the radio says:
"How about those Dumbocrats and their smellfare reform?"
It's on that level, only I guess it's serious.
Ok, now that I read to the end I take it back, sociopathy is not hilarious. Maybe this is the "radical right"?
Perforated ulcers? MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! To those not familiar with that particular ailment, we’re happy to say that it is one of the most demonically painful ways to go. Basically, your stomach starts to leak and all of those yummy, acidic juices flow out and eat you up alive from the inside. Damn, I’m getting the warm and fuzzies something fierce here, just thinking about the excruciating agony that communist traitor pig went through before Lucifer claimed his rotten soul.
-
Well said JM Walker
[Read the article: The Noxious Fruits of Hate Speech laws]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is the virtue you bring to the increasingly devalued currency of debate in our country: Allegiance to principle above ideology—freedom and justice for all.
This discussion has been refreshingly reasonable overall.
Had this guy been saying negative things about say the Bush Administration most people would immediately recognize how flawed these laws are. I expect most people to have a gaping blind spot when his speech is speech they find offensive rather than agreeable, but that has not been the case.
---
On a somewhat related note, I was looking into the history of US speech restrictions. Most people are familiar with the "shouting fire in a theater" logic and the "clear and present danger" test but the case that gave us those is indefensible. That case was centered around anti-war pamphlets, and the "clear and present danger" was the danger of papercuts apparently.
The should be a reminder that the government policing speech is rarely a good thing.
-
I liked Nulla Sallus' poem
[Read the article: The Noxious Fruits of Hate Speech laws]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In a weird sort of way. It got the point across anyway.
But we wouldn't want to damage the delicate ears of the ladies in attendance I suppose...
-
"Clear and present danger"
[Read the article: The Noxious Fruits of Hate Speech laws]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That case was absurd. As I noted earlier, although people rememebr the "fire in a theater" quote the case in question revolved around anti-war pamphlets.
The court ruled that *pamplhets* represented "clear and present danger." Inane.
-
This is not that complicated
[Read the article: The Kucinich court decision and "judicial activism"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]To attack legal opinions you have to make legal arguments. That is what it boils down to.
"What the hell? Gay marriage?!?!" is not a legal argument.
In math and science common sense is often incorrect. The same is true of law. You have to actually read the opinions, read the relevant laws and prior cases, be familiar with law and then make an argument based in legal reasoning.
If you phrase it like "the court is forcing MSNBC to include Kucinich" that sounds bad, but if you phrase it like "the court is forcing MSNBC to honor its contract" it makes perfect sense.
Are free speech zones judicial activism? What about the "bong hits for Jesus" case? Or the famous "fire in a crowded theater" case?
In my view all those decisions are wrong, but if I want to argue that I'll rely on legal arguments. Bad decisions happen that favor a variety of policy positions. Yet somehow "judicial activism" only applues to decisions that favor liberal positions...
-
Chris Dowd you aren't making a legal argument
[Read the article: The Kucinich court decision and "judicial activism"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If you want to define "judicial activism" as merely "bad decisions" then yes, judicial activism exists. But the term is synonymous with specific cases and policies that all reflect a right-wing mindset. Again I've never heard the "bong hits for Jesus" case described as "judicial activism." Why not?
Judges on both sides make bad rulings and sometimes push in favor of their preferred policies. But cries of judicial activism are mysteriously one-sided.
If you want to claim that a decision is bad you have to provide legal reasoning. You aren't doing that. The point Glenn was making with gay marriage is not that it is or isn't a bad decision, the point was that it's an example of people making purely non-legal arguments.
I do enjoy your blog, by the way. I agree that "left" and "right" distinctions are mostly irrelevant, especially in this day and age when the real split is between authoritarians and others.
-
@LWM
[Read the article: The Kucinich court decision and "judicial activism"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not going to get sucked into terminology warfare. I've seen you argue about different forms of libertarianism enough to realize what a waste of time that would be.
I didn't "deny" anything, nor do I understand why you are instantly adversarial.
-
I just finished taking a journalism class
[Read the article: CNN's John King responds]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In it we talked to some high-profile people at major newspapers. This is par for the course, they live inside a tiny little box and anything outside of it is incomprehensible to them. It's hard to overstate how even the most obvious ideas surprise them. They have absolutely no perspective. They have zero ability to objectively examine their own field.
There is a good reason that Rolling Stone, Comedy Central and ESPN produce better journalists. Those people have perspective, they haven't been part of the same small crowd for 20 years.
Blaming the editor is silly. Yes, editors do edit things out, but they don't force people to ask specific questions. His questions were not even questions, they were just praise in question form.
When someone says that you don't understand how journalism works that is a compliment.