Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Published Letters: 81 Editor's Choice: 9
So, the year Harriet Miers ran for Dallas City Council, she gave answers to a questionnaire from an antiabortion group that indicated she agreed with the group's positions. She also gave answers to a gay rights group that mostly coincided with that group's positions on the issues.
Should we believe that her answers truly reflected her own opinions, or should we suspect that she was telling the groups what they'd want to hear?
Should the Senate Judiciary Committee believe anything she says to them, or will she just be telling them what she figures she has to say to get confirmed?
I was completely put off by the PINK!!!!! but I gave the blog a read anyway.
Let's put it this way.
I'd rather you brought back the odious and insane David Horowitz than have this "girl's blog" in your web site one more day.
It's bad enough that the Busheviks are trying to drag us back to the 1950s of second-class citizenship for "the ladies". Whoever came up with the brilliant notion that "girls just want to have cheeky gossip" should be fired. Now.
"To those who are worried that the creation of Broadsheet means that we're marginalizing stories about women: that couldn't be further from the truth. Our aim is to publish more -- scads more, in fact -- stories that are of interest to women."
Excuse me, but just how absolutely freaking clueless does somebody have to be to respond to tsunami of complaints that "stories of interest to women" are, for the most part, not stories of interest exclusively to women and therefore, stories of interest to or about women SHOULD NOT BE SEQUESTERED IN THEIR OWN LITTLE PINK GHETTO, by promising to sequester even more stories "of interest to women" in the pink ghetto?
We women are perfectly capable of finding the stories that interest us without a big pink bow to draw our attention. There's no reason to publish the stories that may be of particular interest to women separate from the rest of Salon's content.
It's time to admit that groupthink spawned an idea that has offended the majority of Salon's readership. Keep the stories, but get rid of the ghetto.
Judith Miller's response to her critics is noteworthy for its consistency. It boils down to, "He's lying. She's lying. They're all lying. Everybody's a liar except me."
Somehow, I find it much easier to believe that Miller is the one lying.
Hire illegal immigrants (who presumably will be afraid to complain about mistreatment for fear of being deported), refuse to pay them, submit the bill for the wages that aren't being paid, and pocket the money. Nice little racket there. The CEOs of all the companies involved should be arrested -- and held without bail in a New Orleans jail.
"Farhad Manjoo of Salon" is cited in the Acknowledgments as one of the people to whom Mark Crispin Miller "owe[s] an incalculable debt of thanks".
So maybe Joan Walsh didn't know this when she assigned the book review to Manjoo; Manjoo should have seen it and should have refused the assignment.
That he took the assignment anyway shows that his journalistic ethics are, shall we say, thinner than a butterfly ballot.
Rabbi Eckstein's warning, "Rhetoric can create an anti-Jewish feeling among good Bible-believing Christians," sounds suspiciously like a threat: "Don't oppose the Evangelical Right's agenda or they'll mess you up bad." It's enlightening how quickly certain self-proclaimed followers of the Prince of Peace resort to threats when somebody disagrees with them. They're bullies, plain and simple, and I applaud Mr. Foxman and Rabbi Yoffie for standing up to them.
Did the Supreme Court agree to review the Perrymandering because four justices thought there was sufficient problem with it, or because they want to overthrow the Voting Rights Act? (Remember, it isn't paranoia if they really are out to get you.)
I see a pattern developing. When Michelle Goldberg was writing about the antiwar movement, she was all about how the leftie-leftists were a bigger threat than the warmongers. Now she's telling us that the liberals are going to alienate more people by criticizing Joe Lieberman than Lieberman will by sucking up to Bush.
Little things like that could make me suspect that Michelle Goldberg thinks "leftist" is a synonym for "bogeyman".
One question I've yet to see answered about this story is how the White House found out that NYT reporters were working on the story. It seems to me, if reporters are working on a story based on leaks of secret information, they're not likely to call the White House and say, "Somebody gave us this information that we're not supposed to have because they're not supposed to give it to us; is the information true?"
So -- how did it happen that the White House knew about the story and was thus able to tell the Times not to run it?
The things that everybody ignores when going on about how Sen. Reid and Sen. Dorgan, in particular, got donations from "Jack Abramoff's clients" is that these senators' political interests coincide with the tribes' interests. Sen. Dorgan has supported the tribes' interests for years and would do so even if nobody'd ever heard of Jack Abramoff. After all, he represents a state with a large Indian population. And Sen. Reid represents Nevada -- you know, Las Vegas, Reno, existing gambling establishments; of course he's going to vote the way the tribes would want him to, because they and he both have reason to limit new gambling establishments.
The question should be not whether politicians received contributions from "Jack Abramoff's clients", but why they did. In the case of the Democratic recipients, the answer definitely is not "because the contributors were Abramoff's clients".
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
