Letters to the Editor
DCLaw1
Published Letters: 996 Editor's Choice: 2
-
Don't Betrayus!
[Read the article: Columbia to be punished for hosting the new Hitler enemy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Normally, I would never be caught dead subjecting myself to the bowtied shrieks of "Tucker" on MSNBC, but it so happened that David Shuster was substituting for him tonight, so I gave it a spin (which makes me wonder, do Tucker's ratings spike when a real journalist takes his seat?).
One gratifying segment was Shuster's exploration of Republican hypocrisy regarding the NYT Petraeus ad vis-a-vis Rush Limbaugh's similarly uncivil labeling of Chuck Hagel as "Senator Betray Us." Shuster's guest/pinata was Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), whose district has a military base from which many soldiers are deployed to Iraq.
He started by asking if she would "like to take this opportunity to condemn" Limbaugh's comments about Senator "Betray Us" Hagel. She, of course, said she'd rather fixate on the NYT ad. The best part, however, was when Shuster asked her the name of the latest soldier from her district to die in Iraq. When she predictably didn't know, he then asked her why she didn't know this when she apparently knows so much about the vagaries of the Petraeus ad.
Although the setup was a tad sneaky of Shuster, it was quite enjoyable watching Rep. Blackburn squirm in the stench of her own misplaced priorities. When David Shuster thanked her for coming on the show, she just fumed, tight-lipped.
Paragons of media mediocrity Tucker Carlson and Glenn Beck get their own shows, but not David Shuster?
-
Greenwald TV?
[Read the article: Columbia to be punished for hosting the new Hitler enemy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Military Patriot:
Mathews also asked some tough questions on his show and as I have said before, he is an anti attack Iran advocate and I don't see why he wouldn't entertain having Glenn on his show.
I've been wondering for some time what's taking Keith Olbermann so long to invite Glenn on (or for Glenn to accept?). Keith tends to cover a lot of stories at angles that ordinarily only appear in blogs, so they'd be a good match.
Perhaps it's geography and logistical limitations.
-
David Shuster
[Read the article: Columbia to be punished for hosting the new Hitler enemy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Here's video of that Shuster v. Rep. Blackburn exchange I mentioned earlier, about her knowing more about the MoveOn ad than the deaths of soldiers from her own district. I apparently wasn't the only one highly entertained.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/24/shuster-to-rep-blackburn-when-was-the-last-time-a-new-york-times-ad-ever-killed-somebody/
-
the mind reels
[Read the article: Fox News' attack on the honor and integrity of our war generals]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn, these revelations and analyses you offer up have always been nothing short of shocking glimpses into the bottomless abyss of our everyday political world, but I have been particularly nauseated these last few days.
Our "leaders" priorities - Democratic as well as Republican - are so fundamentally backwards now that I am rapidly losing what little respect I had remaining for the laughing stock that is Congress. Sadly, it goes so much further than that - to the media that enables these pernicious tropes and canards, and cheers on every fraudulent narrative ever to be woven from the busy spider legs of the scorched-earth neoconservatives.
Your post today fills me with a corrosive mix of sadness and rage. To be repeatedly let down by a government led by the party that gave us unnecessary war and civil rights violations is one thing - being slapped across the face by the so-called "opposition" party, having been elected into a majority on the mandate that they reverse these trends, is quite another.
More fantastical wizardry can't be found in a JRR Tolkien book than the prevailing myth that Republicans' taking a firm stand is "acting out of principle" or "responding to their constituency," while Democrats' doing so is "pandering their radical left wing."
I agree with you that this new standard of iron-clad rhetorical protection for all military personnel must be aggressively shoved back in the sanctimonious faces of those who violate it with such revealing alacrity. But this is so very unkempt a tactic, and far below the self-destructive gentlemanliness of our absurdly pro-forma Democratic Party.
They are too busy trying to get "patted on the head" - as you have described it - by those who hate them most. Revolting.
-
Glenn
[Read the article: Harry Reid works to ensure telecom amnesty, warrantless surveillance]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Unfortunately haven't had much opportunity to comment lately, but I have been reading when I can.
Thank you again for your continued vigilance on this issue. You do us all a tremendous service.
-
Peter Principle overdrive
[Read the article: Mukasey's nomination and the sudden opposition to "waterboarding"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It really does seem much of the time that the higher one looks in the echelons of any organization, the more stupidity and mendacity one finds. This seems especially true in government, and doubly so in the Congress.
I am dumbstruck daily at the idiocy and/or duplicity of the people perched on the uppermost rungs of power. And that's to say nothing of what I learn in the news.
Then again, American voters do seem to be gluttons for this unique kind of abuse.
-
JerseyJeffersonian
[Read the article: Mukasey's nomination and the sudden opposition to "waterboarding"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Rather than an invocation of the Peter Principle as an explanation of what you see, perhaps you should consider the even more pernicious Iron Law of Institutions as that which accounts for these phenomena, as formulated by Jonathan Schwartz at his fabulous blog, tinyrevolution:
http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001705.html
I once was blind, but now I see. Those injected into positions of responsibility through the Peter Principle only labor in the vineyards of the Iron Law.
I wasn't postulating an actual hypothesis, just being cynical. I'm not really a fan of these pat little unifying theories for everything.