Letters to the Editor
DCLaw1
Published Letters: 996 Editor's Choice: 2
-
RMP
[Read the article: Jonah Goldberg and Glenn Reynolds warn of "social unraveling" if Obama loses]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have the same gut feeling and my gut is right a lot more times than it is wrong.
That doesn't mean that I still don't have some skepticism on Obama and how much he can carry out his promises.
Absolutely, and I agree. I don't think feeling hopeful and being somewhat skeptical are mutually exclusive. As with any politician, we must always remain aware of the fact that we will be promised things never delivered, and will be delivered things never promised. Ultimately, as we all know, selecting a candidate is all about a careful mixture of practicality and ideology, critical analysis and trust.
I also appreciate that, unlike some others, you don't obnoxiously assume that my reaction to Obama is based on empty talking points and other naive and irrelevant grounds. I thought that, by now, I might have at least earned somewhat of a reputation for being able to think critically.
It always amazes me how many people in these comment threads aggrandize themselves by thinking that someone's ignoring them means they don't understand or cannot offer a rebuttal. As if it has nothing to do with their track record of never moving on, and trying to suck others into an endless comment debate vortex.
All that said, real life does march on, mercifully.
-
Glenn
[Read the article: Jonah Goldberg and Glenn Reynolds warn of "social unraveling" if Obama loses]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Wow - I was able only now to read through most of these. What a comment thread. Awesome. It had everything -- angry accusers from the past harboring their same conspiracy theories, special appearances by single-issue disrupters, cliched ideological attacks, and discovery of all sorts of hidden agendas.
It's simple: some people just have way, way too much time on their hands.
-
Martin Gifford
[Read the article: The role of political reporters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Michael Scherer:
"I would like to say I was being ironic in that High School post, but there was a blood oath I had to take when I left Salon.com for Time magazine. (The ceremony was bizarre: drinking cranberry juice from a plastic Halloween skull, singing a Britney Spears song backwards, etc.) All the irony has been cleansed from my body and mind. I am all mainstream media all the time now. If I am critical of my fellow journalists, Time Inc gives me a shock through my new ankle bracelet. It hurts."
I thought I was just misunderstanding, but when I first read Glenn's introduction to Scherer's article, and then the article itself, I presumed it was positing that journalists are often petty and juvenile (in the same way that so many bloggers themselves "ironically" describe the inanities of the media), not apologizing for or reinforcing that pettiness.
The tip off for me was the last portion when he says, "When [Huckabee] runs for class president, you are tempted to vote for him if only because you just know he would make the weekly assemblies more fun. He also wants a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion, and he thinks gay marriage will destroy civilization."
Then I read Tristero's post on Digby's blog, as well as many comments to Scherer's article, and it seemed like many were pointing the finger at him for perpetuating that dynamic. Where is the line between disdainfully describing a pernicious behavior and indulging in that behavior one's self? I don't know, whatever, not my pissing match.
Maybe you've all deconstructed this already. I can't read all these comments. Ah well. 'Night.
-
In defense of the "messianic"
[Read the article: Illustrative New Hampshire snippets]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now to write with the same flourish as Little Brother, as referenced in Update III. So let me be plain.
If you're left-leaning, note how your opinion of a "messianic," crusading, idealistic public figure is affected by a comparison with Ronald Reagan and "Morning in America," as was done by Little Brother. Now compare that same person to a "messianic," crusading, idealistic public figure such as Martin Luther King, Jr., or Gandhi. What animates a tendency to want to compare to the former rather than the latter?
You can disdain or embrace the idealistic for no better reason than that they are idealistic -- either way, you are no better than your gullible or heartless opposite. Can we not acknowledge the possibility that not all causes and sources of passion are empty, dangerous, or ultimately sinister, by mere dint of being passionate, but that some indeed merit support because they stand enthusiastically and intelligently for genuinely good things?
Also, speaking to familiar thoughts like Little Brother's -- most usually less eloquently stated -- is it ever possible in the "blogosphere" for a single person or thing not to be automatically tainted by the mere fact that the CORPORATE MAINSTREAM MEDIA (booga booga) happens to like it?
Full circle -- how the skeptics can so quickly become the mindless and reflexive. Interesting, as well, how a hatred for orthodoxy and uniformity ends up creating an even stronger orthodoxy and uniformity. Perhaps not so much interesting as predictable.
I, for one, don't intend to throw my life away on the thin, cold soup of a scowling wordview that "knows" too much to ever make a whit of difference in the world.
To whomever: bitterness is like strong whiskey. Best not drink yourself to death.