Letters to the Editor
Buffalonian
Published Letters: 371 Editor's Choice: 74
-
Intellectual Honesty and Dishonesty
[Read the article: Newt goes off message]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The question of intellectual dishonesty is at the heart of our current state I believe. If Republicans don't like Edward's poverty policies (and they're more than welcome to), then they should argue that point, not discuss the cost of haircuts. If they didn't like Kerry's multilateralism, then they should attack that, not whisper that he "looks French".
Conversely, Democrats need to do the same thing, although I think they are intellectually honest more often than the Republicans. I hate Anne Coulter's presence in the media landscape, but I shudder everytime I hear a liberal call her Anne the Man or similar bullshit. Her ideas are odious enough without the school yard taunts.
Before the candidates declared, I wrote that I hoped for a Gingrich v. Feingold race. It would, I hoped, have produced a higher level of discourse at least. That's not going to happen now, but at least Gingrich graduated from college based on something other than his last name.
-
Okay, but what about Clinton?
[Read the article: Gloria Borger & the media's reverence for Karl Rove]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I take your point that the media love a winner, and love to be seen as savvy, but then what explains their hostility to Bill Clinton? He was a lifelong winner. He was the comeback kid. But the media turned on him at the first chance and hounded until his presidency was severely diminished.
I take your, and Jay Rosen's, point that the media worships savviness above all, but then how do they blindly continue to follow the Bush line? They look ridiculous. It's certainly not an aversion to flipflopping; they've shown they can do that all day without batting an eyelid. The longer they stay with this sinking ship, the less savvy they appear.
So, it has to be something more than simply desire for access and an admiration for savviness because they didn't take the same attitude with Clinton or Carville who most certainly played the same leaking / access game, no?
What's the difference?
-
@ mizbinkley
[Read the article: Neither was ours]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]sar·chasm ('sär-"ka-z&m) : The giant gulf between what is said and the person who doesn't get it.
-
@ chett
[Read the article: Neither was ours]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And what, exactly, would have been the benefit of quitting? He would have let Bush appoint another young justice who would mar the court for 30 or 40 years. That really would have been cutting off your nose to spite your face, no? If he had quit, everyone on the left would have crucified him for abandonning the ship and not staying to fight. God bless him and Justice Stevens, who will be nearly 90 when Bush leaves office (pleae God).
-
@ mizbinkley
[Read the article: Neither was ours]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes mizbinkley, I am suggesting that it was exceptionally obvious to everyone that Amity was being sarcastic and I believe that you appear foolish in answering it sincerely.
A couple of pointers for the future:
When some says "Ya think?" nowadays, they're not really asking if indeed you do believe what you just said. They are implying that you have said something stunningly obvious.
When someone not on Fox news says in 2007 "why do you hate America?" they are not literally asking why you hate America. They are mocking rightwing bloviators who trot out versions of this sentiment to stifle dissent.
When Jonathan Swift suggested that the Irish eat their children to lessen the population and end famine simultaneously, he was not really suggesting cannibalism. He was trying to suggest that British and landlord positions regarding the Irish were inhumane. Historically, many people were able to understand this (but I bet not you!) without ever seeing Swift's face or reading his body language.
This is called "satire" and, actually, people have used it in literature for many many years. So, therefore, I hope you don't mind if I do not buy the excuse that sarcasm is incapable of being conveyed in written form. Nonetheless, I assure you that there is no sarcasm in this post, so you can read it literally.
By the way, the Amity post was very funny. If you did not find it funny, that's because there is a "sarchasm" between you and intelligent people.
-
Well, darnit, I MUST be simple...
[Read the article: Neither was ours]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... because for the life of me, I can't see a pun in the following:
"Being an ass is easy. Being sincere is hard. Congratulations, Buffalonian, on being so very simple. That's another pun."
Where's the pun? I am sure I am missing something. Is there a well known phrase: "being a bass is easy"? Or "being an ass is cheesy?" Or "being sincere is lard"? Or "you are so very dimple"?
Back to your point... I did get it. You unilaterally declared that these fora were not appropriate places for sarcasm because not knowing the person who wrote it "well" and not being able to see the person's body language, sarcasm can be misconstrued [by the dimwitted, I might add].
I disagree with this assertion. I think that many people can understand saracasm in absence of the two conditions you outlined. Furthermore, I do not agree with your excuse that because some people write "crazy sh_t" in her, an intelligent reader can't discern obvious irony.
Face it, someone wrote a drily witty ironic post and you missed it. It's not a mortal sin, but it does open you up for some gentle ribbing, hence my intially understated reply with the definition of "sarchasm". Then however you had to go and try to defend yourself very seriously, only further proving that you not only can't get jokes, you don't take them either. Let it go.
So, back to that "pun"... "being a glass is queasy"? "congratulations on being so very pumpernickle?" You're going to help me out. I just don't see it.
-
@ mizbinkley
[Read the article: Neither was ours]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Now, you're just being a poor sport and a bad loser.