Letters to the Editor
What Constitution?
Published Letters: 105
-
Other things Franklin is known for...
[Read the article: True confessions]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I wonder what would have happened to you had you said that Franklin is notable for saying "those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither"???? Rendition?
-
Think maybe you touch a nerve, GG?
[Read the article: Abject stupidity defined]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This fascinating e-mail and the follow-up hysteria cautions me to offer this one, unfortunately morbid, word of caution to you, Glenn: whatever you do, please do not get baited into actually going to Iraq to "see for yourself." You will likely be dead fifteen minutes after you land, shot in the back by an un-located "sniper" using an AK-47 with gunpowder residue made in America. I hate to say that about my country and those in power in it, but assuming (hopefully) it would still be too obvious to "rendish" a guy like you, they could still try to sell an "accident" and get noted liberal reporters from the NY Times to write it up and send it in.
-
The Word to Emphasize is "Propaganda"
[Read the article: Demand answers from Time magazine]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In "The Producers", Mel Brooks epitomizes what propaganda is by having Joseph Goebbels tell Hitler that he just told the people "we invaded England" and that "I told 'em we beat them!", to which Hitler rejoins "That's my Joey, I love my Little Joe!"
Maybe if concepts of "responsibility" and "ethics" don't get through to TIME, TIME's editors and TIME's writers, the idea of abject humiliation and derision might.
Glenn, your invaluable exposition of the fundamental dishonesty of this Klein/TIME hatchet job is, as your work so often is, magnificent and compelling. But as we collectively bemoan the likely absence of anything resembling "alarm" coming from the "mainstream" or the "Beltway" or the "Serious" folk, how about we start using, in bold type, the one word that everybody understands and nobody purports to like: "propaganda." THAT'S WHAT THIS EPISODE EPITOMIZES. THAT'S A MONIKER THAT NOT EVEN TIME MAGAZINE SAFELY CAN IGNORE. Isn't it? How can an author, confronted with the abject falsity of the cornerstone of his political tome, respond that he has neither the expertise nor the time to understand what he has written (and an editor subsequently back him) without the piece being recognized as pure, unadulterated and intentional propaganda? Who could do that? It cries out to be the butt of Mel Brooks' jokes, not just (though, certainly, also) anger and scorn.
-
It's the propaganda, children
[Read the article: Time magazine refused to publish responses to Klein's false smears]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let's see. Klein's story is materially false in every significant factual respect. Neither Klein nor TIME will correct the falsehoods, and they won't even acknowledge their receipt of demands for corrections emanating from the actual congresspeople directly implicated in the smear, let alone correct their falsehoods. So the essence of the story's conclusion -- that congressional democrats are being "beyond stupid" in their alleged efforts to coddle terrorists -- stands.
Glenn, as brilliant and admirable as your efforts have been on this, I fear that by emphasizing the shallowness of TIME's and Klein's "stenography" journalism excuses, TIME and Klein are being allowed to turn this into a "process" story instead of having to take the heat for the exposure of their propagandistic goals.
Question: could Hitler have asked anything more of Goebbels in 1938 than for the type of bullheaded lies that TIME and Klein are not only have foisted, but are even still perpetuating, here? The story they have published is factually untrue for the purpose of supporting a vicious visceral suggestion that those who disagree with efforts to jettison fundamental principles of the United States Constitution and impose a police state in this country are "unpatriotic" and, in fact, "beyond stupid". Exposed, they nibble around the edges of "process" because the first layer of the exposition allows them to do so and, when that too is blasted away, they go silent... but the story still stands in their 4 million circulation universe.
The question that is left now is, exactly what goal is being furthered by TIME's persistent refusal to do anything remotely ethical when faced with the litany of proof of the mendacity of Klein's story? There's only one answer: TIME intended, intends and likes the mendacity of the story -- and the only reason that could possibly be true is because TIME's editors like (aka "see value for themselves in") the idea of painting opponents of fascist legislation as unpatriotic wimps.
That's pretty sad. But it is, at it's core, the most fundamental type of "propaganda" in it's most pristine form.
-
Research topic before next Senate vote?
[Read the article: Anatomy and significance of Monday's FISA victory]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't know who to ask for this kind of information, but it seems to me that, before the Senate next publicly debates telecom immunity, it would be really useful to have a survey and summary compilation of telecom contributions to senators. A graph showing increases/decreases over time could be instructive, too.
And having had the opportunity to tune in sporadically to the Senate proceedings on Monday, may I just say that Ted Kennedy's speech regarding the immunity issues was very moving and appreciated by this citizen. His impassioned articulation of the pernicious, imperious and utterly immoral lawlessness of Bush's threat to veto any FISA bill that omits immunity provisions -- thus obviously placing the whitewashing of his administration's illegality over the "Americans will die" rhetoric that he so readily threw at Congress in August when insisting that more surveillance authority was needed -- was brilliant and compelling.
I am looking forward to the possibility that between now and January there could actually be some kind of mainstream recognition that there are some truly outrageous actions that the Bush administration has been pulling, and that Senator Dodd's courageous stand (which in a sane universe would not be seen as courageous, rather just doing the job we elect such people to do on our behalf) will be supported by a growing groundswell of appreciation and support. We can hope, right?