Letters to the Editor
Riversofexile
Published Letters: 71
-
wow, damn
[Read the article: The Tom Friedman of 2002 has not gone anywhere]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks Glenn, for deconstructing Friedman's flatulent malfeasance. How sad is it that this is the level of opinion making in the leading newspaper of the country?
Friedman is so incompetent - and totally neocon-driven - in the very topic in which he "specializes" (foreign affairs, the Middle East in particular) it boggles the mind that he could have attained such preeminence in intellectual circles, truly.
One hopes that, now that the general public and the press are learning more about what really goes on out there in the rest of the world, the type of nonsensical, immature "analysis" [sic] dished out by the likes of Friedman will finally elicit the ridicule they deserve.
As for the Dowd column, what else is there to say, those quotes are gross, nauseating, hardly a credit to the paper publishing this sort of tripe.
-
The superficial (and idiotic) nature of the discourse
[Read the article: Brian Williams: "Marriage is under attack"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]is what I find most disturbing about this, and similar nonsensical phrases thrown around our national media.
What does it even mean to say "marriage is under attack"? It's a meaningless non-sequitur, a piece of agitprop mindlessly repeated ad nauseam - and it stills means strictly nothing.
More to the point, human partnerships/relationships/unions frequently fail for any number of reasons, some individual, some societal. Marriage being an artificial construct steeped in lore, religion, emotions and unrealistic expectations, it is not too surprising it fails so often, all on its own.
Abolish this outdated relic of a social convention, and be done with it, is what I say.
-
Glenn: Not such a speculative question, right?
[Read the article: Joe Klein: Both factually false and stuck in the 1980s]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn, when you interpret Blizter's straight-out-of-the-Middle-Ages line of questioning thus, in a response to a poster:
"In other words, if we can enhance our national security by forming an alliance with a repressive dictator, should we do it? Or should we promote human rights in a country even if it means we might harm our own national security in the process (such as by pushing Musharraf out)?"
My question, in the context you put it, is: when did the US ever put human rights anywhere overseas before embracing a dictator, be it for "national security" or whatever else was deemed proper "US interests"?
I don't agree that that's what Blitzer meant to ask - it was about torturing people, in my view, but assuming it was - all it would show would be an extraordinary lack of historical perspective on his part, what else is new.
More generally, I agree with all who don't view Democratic Party, as a whole and historically, as all that enlightened in foreign policy. For anyone on the receiving end of it, there hasn't been a whole lot of difference up to now, as far as I can tell. Blanc bonnet, bonnet blanc, excuse my French.
And Glenn, OT, but please, what happened to the email saga with Petraus' rep? Did it just die away?
-
What Ché Pasa said
[Read the article: Bad stenographers]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As much as I enjoy much of what Glenn has to write, I admit to being confused sometimes, especially when us - Glenn's readers - are called upon to "demand accountability" from a magazine I have only ever seen at the dentist's office, and totally despise.
Having grown-up entirely in a dictatorship, I recognize the roles of court scribes such as Klein, and while exposing them is no doubt a good thing, I feel it is pointless trying to affect their techniques. But, as Glenn also says, this isn't about just one columnist in one magazine. However, the emphasis on the quality of journalism (what journalism?) is off, in my opinion.
This is about a structural set-up (in political media across the board) designed to promote a certain approach - if not ideology - to foreign policy (in this case, the sacrosanct "national security" issue aka "war on terror" aka "unrestrained aggression towards the Muslim world").
I see Klein's fibs here not as incompetence, but as a deliberate attempt at whipping Democratic politicians into shape so that those who might stray a little fully align with that approach. Period.
I don't know - I don't give a damn about Time mag or even whatever label is applied to the press in general. After all, with few marginal exceptions, the ENTIRE press did cheer the march to war, the invasion, the occupation of Iraq. Same for the US public. They only stopped when things went south on them, let's face it. Why should I care now what any of them says about anything?
I care about the bigger, far more egregious picture, that of an unrelenting drive to push politicians in a certain direction, when it comes to foreign policy, especially towards the Great.Muslim.Danger out there.
-
Still no accountability
[Read the article: Court orders Bush administration to disclose telecom lobbying ties. What about senators?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You're mistaken about this. The Supreme Court's ruling did have an effect on the Bush administration. They went to Congress and had their detention and interrogation scheme legalized in the form of the Military Commissions Act.
GG
Right, in other words, the Administration got its behavior validated and legalized. So there was an "effect". Was that progress or further erosion/abuse of the judicial/legistlative system? Did the Administration get away with its practices, regardless? Is the sky blue?