Letters to the Editor
PreviouslyCRL
Published Letters: 202 Editor's Choice: 32
-
Ulterior motives?
[Read the article: We'll take Tinky Winky in the fifth]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm finding it harder and harder to accept that the Bush administration is simply incompetent and appoints incompetent people to important positions. In fact, once the covers are finally ripped off all of the historical documents that the Bush administration has worked and is still working so hard to keep from the public eye, I would not be at all surprised to find that there was a concerted effort to destroy the federal government by deliberate neglect
It seems that we are being conditioned to think that our government cannot do anything well (or without partisan purpose) and, therefore, that we will instead look for solutions either in the private sector or from non-profits and religious organizations. And, unfortunately, it might work since Americans, as a whole, tend to know so little of their history.
If we knew our history, we would understand the shortcomings of private, non-profit and religious organizations in addressing certain types of issues, whether they be production of unbiased, in-depth news, or affordable health care, or disaster preparedness and relief. But, being so historically uneducated, we are susceptible to the hokum of modern Republican ideology ("government is the problem").
So the Bush administration goes systematically about it's business of being incompetent, and psychologically we move further and further from seeing our government as an instrument of our will for the common good.
-
End the fascism meme
[Read the article: Must-see TV: Olbermann on Rumsfeld]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We need to stop this fascism meme now. The Bush administration is using the word primarily to drum up fear and historical memory of the second world war, but the comparison is far less than apt when the meaning of the word is considered. Here are two common definitions of fascism.
a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. -- Dictionary.com
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. -- American Heritage Dictionary
Note that fascism is primarily conceived of as a "system of government." The so-called islamofascists identified by the Bush administration are terrorists, and, as the Bush administration has admitted, are in most cases stateless. On this central point alone it makes no sense to say that what we are up against is fascism.
Further, insofar as the Islamic terrorists like Bin Laden and al Qaeda are interested in setting up a government, should they ever attain sufficient power, theirs would be a theocracy, something that was rejected by the fascists of the 20th century although the fascists were not anti-religion (http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm). So on this account it is also inappropriate to characterize the Islamic terrorists, who are the primary focus of the "War on Terror," as fascists.
Someone needs to call out the Bush administration on this clear abuse of language. The "fascist" meme is all about stirring emotion, not clearly defining who the "enemy" is.
-
Single word change explains all
[Read the article: Same man, different minute]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Original quotation about Rumsfeld
[issue of the moment] may make for good politics, but would make for a lousy strategy at this time.
New quotation about president's speeches
[issue of the moment] may make for good politics, but would make for a great strategry at this time.
-
So...
[Read the article: Couric to Bush: "I'm really grateful. Thank you. Thank you"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]how does this make Couric's interview any different than most of the shallow interviews with the President and other politicians that we've been subjected to in the mainstream media?
Given Ms. Couric's "news" pedigree I had no expectations that she would change the news on television for the better. She's just confirming that she's another telegenic face, albeit female, who is not going to do the hard work to truly inform us. Let's face it, with or without Ms. Couric, television is a terrible way to stay informed and has been for at least a couple of decades.
-
A poll for Salon readers
[Read the article: Couric to Bush: "I'm really grateful. Thank you. Thank you"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Given the nearly universal disgust of Salon readers with Couric's interview of President Bush (our amusing friend Joe excepted), I'd like to know something about our TV news viewing habits and our reasons for them. I'll get this poll rolling by giving mine.
I have completely stopped watching any television news on television. For me, the signal-to-noise ratio is way to low to make it worth my time. The internet, newspapers, NPR and blogs are a significantly better use of my time for staying informed. However, since I do want to know what many Americans are hearing and seeing (so I can understand something about how they are forming their opinions), I spend time online with Crooks and Liars, the Daily Show, YouTube, Media Matters for America and assorted video resources. Granted, this approach has some drawbacks since I am getting "filtered" information rather than viewing the raw source material, but there are only 24 hours each day after all, and I do need to be somewhat productive.
-
Sac, please apologize to Ballsee
[Read the article: Couric to Bush: "I'm really grateful. Thank you. Thank you"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sac,
I don't know why you're so pissed off at Ballsee, but your anger is misdirected. He/she (sorry, I have no idea what gender Ballsee is) was just responding to my post asking about Salon readers' TV viewing habits. (It's on page 3 if you sort from oldest to newest.) You can blame me for asking the question if you'd like, but it seems kind of pointless to expend so much emotional energy on this.
-
The sophistry has gotten ridiculous
[Read the article: Bonfire of the vagaries]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Bush and his henchmen are simply laughingstocks at this point. They have parsed, stretched and twisted language to such an extent so they can continue to "deceive" that I think they've lost sight of just how ridiculous it makes them sound.
Remember in the 2004 State of the Union when "weapons of mass destruction" became "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities." One would have to be deeply self-deceived to believe that sort of phrasing would sound like anything other than classic covering-your-ass language. And so it is with Snow's latest parsing.
If anybody (besides joe) find's Snow's "account" of the "relationship" between al Queda and Saddam anything other than laughable, I'd like to hear it.