Letters to the Editor
Kitt
Published Letters: 2951
-
Jonathan...Net Nuetrality
[Read the article: The Bush administration's terrible luck with finding documents]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If you apply the concept of variable reward to government you will see that we are being manipulated like addicts. First they take away some freedoms, then they give a few back. But the overall trend is toward fewer freedoms.
-- Jonathan Hoag
Yes, I'm fully aware that we have been tamped down, tilled under, bullied and bloodied, and that much of the population is either unaware of just how much of their constitional rights have been revoked or considerably undermined, and I know that much of the populace just doesn't care, or even seem to understand that they should care. Ignorance is bliss and all of that.
That's all a shame and will continue to be a shame. But this specific conversation between you and I was, in essence, about Net Nuetrality. That particular issue can go a long way to turn the tables. I say that for a number of reasons. One is that it is the most informed and most determined of us who can take advantage of this means of communication.
The net has proven to be and will continue to prove to be one of the greatest ways ever to get the word out and get it out fast and easily. Undermining that won't be as easy at it has been to simply bully and pay off the MSM pundits, for example. That has been a relative cakewalk for the money changers. This isn't. We've got them by the short hairs with this one, and we're running with it.
Just look at the effect Glenn Greenwald moving to Salon has had. Now, when Glenn talks people in positions of power in the MSM listen, and they feel obligated or defensive enough to reply. Their replies often times come off as pathetic and disingenuous. That gets noticed by Joe and Jane on the street or Joe and Jane reading the net. There are a lot of people out there who were unaware of what a bunch of stenographers and, really, just bald faced liars, they were being taken for chumps by.
This is no small battle we are currently winning. It is a huge battle and could well lead to a sea change in America.
-
Iraqnaed
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Iraqnaed,
Your post doesn't just drip with self righteous sarcasm, it rains with it.
Here is a snippet from Riverbend's last post on her blog Baghdad Burning. She lives in Baghdad, by the way. (At least I deeply hope that she is still alive. Her last post was in February, so, in reality, we can't be certain.) She isn't a visitor of Baghdad, she is a resident. She isn't of the opinion that things are going well at all in Iraq, in contrast to your example from your supposed resident Iraqi who claims that the so called "surge" has turned Iraq around so well that he or she is willing to stick it out. A preposterous claim if I ever heard one.
Riverbend, in this post, was specifically writing about the claim of rape by an Iraqi woman. But what she says here is in a general sense her take on the situation in Iraq as it stands and has stood throughout the occupation.
No one would lie about something like this simply to undermine the Baghdad security operation. That can be done simply by calculating the dozens of dead this last week. Or by writing about the mass detentions of innocents, or how people are once again burying their valuables so that Iraqi and American troops don't steal them.
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
-
casual "BS"
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Casual,
you seem to be dismissing the fact that Glenn based much of his take on O'Donnel's video and transcript by her her previously shown outward disdain and trivilizing of the whole idea of challenging Karl Rove. She made clear where she stands when she was given the opportunity to do so. Her performance was derisive of the challenge to Rove, as Glenn, in his opinion, has stated that it was. In my view, you seem to be giving her way too much benefit of the doubt.
Sidenote question to Glenn or someone else in the know:
What does it mean when the star in the circle is next to a commentor's name at the end of a comment post?
-
Karen
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thank you for answering my question.
-
Casual Mixing
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But what we should not be doing is hitting her with sloppy junk, which is what the Think Progress piece is, in my opinion. If her reporting is boldly, explicitly biased, then it should never be nessessary to misrepresent her, in order to assail her positions or her work.
-- casual_observer
I wasn't referring to your observations about the Think Progress post. I haven't read that Post. Didn't you use your 'the transcript tells the whole story' opinion in response to Glenn's post about O'Donnel? That's what I was referring to. Glenn based part of his take on what he saw on her video with Leahy by her recent behaviour on Mathew's show and etc. I don't think Glenn was "misrepresenting her" at all. I think his opinions of her actions are based on her record of appearances and her personally stated opinions.
-
Democratic Senate
[Read the article: Iraq: American public opinion vs. a "small but powerful group"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"...with a Democrat Senate."
--Shooter
What's a "Democrat Senatate", Shooter? Is that supposed to be the opposite of a Repulic Senate? Or is that just ignorant and or derisive language on your part?
-
Good one!
[Read the article: Profiles in Journalism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How much did you pay for your last haircut? Evidently (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0407/The_Hairs_Still_Perfect.html) this is considered important information that voters should consider.
-- dcobranchi
Now that was damned funny, dcobr!