Letters to the Editor
WinSmith
Published Letters: 103
-
lupercus
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So no matter what anyone says to you, you are going to just keep repeating that we are saying anti-Semitism doesn't exist?
No I'm going to parse out what is really being said, not what is simply written, just like Glenn did in today's post covering Broder and Ignatius. That's called critical analysis. It's the entire crux of discussion.
The "some of my best friends are (blank)" is the oldest false caveat in the book before launching into racisms or generalities. It's no different here. "Yeah, I'm sure somewhere there's anti-Semitism, but not me, can't be me, I don't feel like I'm anti-Semitic, so therefore I can't be!!" Because that's exactly how it works.
Ignatius writes an op/ed today about how, (paraphrasing) "of course nobody wants to bomb Iran."
Do you believe him? Do you take him at his word?
Why not?
He wrote that Bush Administration officials don't want to bomb Iran. How can you argue with Bush Administration officials. They clearly told you they don't intend or want to bomb Iran.
But they do. You and I both know that.
Anyone can write "of course (blank) exists" and then spend the next fifteen pages discussing how it doesn't really exist. And then have hack apologists like you come along with, "but what about that first sentence?" It's like arguing with a Cuisinart.
-
fortunato
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I came back because a lot of people were asking me pointed questions, and I felt a duty to respond. Also it's Sunday, and I'm watching football, and I have the time. Of course I am a "right wing" plant, and do I realllly have a Ph.D., and am I just some kid under 30 because I referenced Timbaland? Heh. Bizarre.
This is something I feel is crucial, as I believe it's the Achilles heel on the left. It is our tragic flaw that the conservatives will exploit, and it pains me to see so many fall into the trap.
Frauds like Lieberman live for people who whip up the Jewish conspiracy theories because it allows him to get outraged. And there's a core truth there, which I'm trying to point out. The more we hand that ignorance to the wingnuts, the more they'll exploit it, just as they exploit fundie Christian stuff, just as they exploit patriotism and every other angle they can run.
But this is the only thread I'll participate in here.
I love Glenn most of the time. Today's blog is genius, his takedown of hacks like Broder and Ignatius is vital. But every so often Glenn veers into the "Jewish money" canard, I've seen him do it in the past and it always depresses me. His own Jewishness doesn't excuse him from falling into those patterns. It just feeds the fire of both the real anti-Semites (who believe in vast Jewish financing conspiracies) and the wingnuts who will grab any angle they can to discredit us.
Glenn's "I'm just stating facts" stuff is disingenuous at best (he's clearly buying into the notion that Jewish interest groups work in concert with republicans to exploit "anti-Semitism" charges to advance right wing causes, while completely dismissive of the real anti-Semitism they're often reacting to). His responses to me were beyond disheartening. But I'm still a huge fan. I'm about 1/3rd of the way through his book right now.
I'm over on Daily Kos if you want to continue to chat. I diary a lot over there, so stop by and say hi.
-
"evidence"
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]the difference is Glenn uses evidence, you rely on belief.
Oh please. When you believe it, it's "evidence." When you don't, it's "belief."
Glenn uses the 10 year track record of lying pundits to expose them. I use a 1000 year track record of anti-Semites obsessing about Jewish media/money control to expose them. But since someone says they aren't "anti-Semitic" or cursorily acknowledges "anti-Semitism exists" while going on to dismiss it, I need more evidence. O-tay.
-
The Double Standard Dance
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Assertion is not analysis.
You're like a gerbil running around a wheel convinced you're in a field of grass.
Glenn does the exact same thing I do. But when you agree with it, it's "analysis" and when you don't, it's "assertion."
When it's David Ignatius, we can parse his words for their real meaning, their narcissism, their cluelessness. When it's a poster on here, it's the "but I didn't explicitly say that!" defense, somewhere between the Dick Cheney War Crimes defense and the Joe Klein head in the sand cluelessness.
You will always see those points you agree with as being more solid then those you don't. That's human nature.
The difference is you're claiming I'm doing something different, and I'm claiming we're doing the same thing. I just disagree with your conclusions, not your methodology.