Letters to the Editor
mattrhames
Published Letters: 43 Editor's Choice: 2
-
Nice try
[Read the article: The question of Rove, now waiting for Snow]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That's great, ending with nice try. Does he mean, "Nice try to get me to answer a question asked by the press?" Or does he mean "Nice try being a reporter?".
What interesting times we live in when Karl Rove can give a smirky little reponse to a question because he knows that he doesn't actually have to answer any questions.
Matt.
-
Irony
[Read the article: Will Bush and Gonzales get away with it?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]From the second last paragraph of the piece: "The vast majority of them never served a day in the military, even though almost all of them were of military age at the time of the Vietnam War".
I wonder if he felt the irony of those words when he said them. I wonder if he though about the things he said about Kerry, a guy who went to Vietnam. Somewhere deep down he had to connect the dots.
It's good that he's fighting this issue, but one wonders where he was when the scandals at Abu Ghraib broke? Oh right, he was working with the Swift Boat Veterans.
-
Even more interesting
[Read the article: Stepping in "macaca"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I can't imagine that this is the first time that a candidate said something racists, or demeaning in a stump speech somewhere. And it's probably not the first time this got caught on tape. So while this might have been news 6 years ago, not many people would have been able to see the video unless it ran on TV. The ability of the video to be seen is the most intriguing development, to me. That means, the campaign is no longer in complete control. A video gets to youtube, gets passed around, and becomes national news. The speed an access we now have to these moments is what's different. Meaning even if you've polished your racist, he might have a spot here and there just waiting to be youtubed.
-
Control
[Read the article: South Dakota senator suffers apparent stroke]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not sure I understand why the Democrats are 'in control' in the first place. By my count, it's 49-49-2. Meaning the republicans are in control (with Cheney's vote the one that gets them in control) and the republicans with the job of convincing the independents that their course is right. The whole concept of independent is just being ignored here, with the democrats being set up for a fall. before all this happened, their so-called majority was tenuous, since Senator Joe is a hawk and thus would never go for anything anti-war anyway.
Enough of that. We're talking about man who is ill, and hopefully he's okay. Still, not being in control of *this* senate is probably good.
-
Unfortunately
[Read the article: National journalists believe you should trust them]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There is some trust in what ABC news says (and other news outlets), and less reflection on what they've said in the past. Consider the poll you cited in an earlier post about Saddam and 911. That seems to be evidence that people do listen to, and trust ABC News and their like.
And that's what's sad. We get soundbites of reports fed to us. So if ABC News reports something, somewhere else the line might be: Iran gets nukes by 2009, according to ABC news. They become the source. And since it's being reported, we're asked to trust that source.
Keep doing what you're doing, and maybe less and less people will trust the source. Right now, sadly, it doesn't appear to be the case.
-
War -- just war
[Read the article: The American media's fringe ideological view of Pelosi's trip]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Back when the Iraq war in its infancy, I remember people on the left who said something to this effect: The Afghanistan War, I was for that, but I'm not for this war.
We got hit hard in the US. But our response was the foreign policy equivalent of blowing up the neighborhood of someone who harmed us. And our next response was blowing up the neighborhood of someone who might harm us (even though, obviously, there was no real indication we would be harmed by them).
My point is, there seems genuine disdain for anyone who thinks the answer isn't war, even on the left. Remember Kerry's so-called gaffe that he thought the terrorist threat should be treated like a police action?
Maybe this is changing though. I still feel like the mainstream media pushes the frame that democrats are about defeat whereas republicans aren't. But maybe America's appetite for a never ending war on terror is eroding enough that they'll look past that frame.
-
We're ABC and you're not
[Read the article: Response from ABC News re: the Saddam-anthrax reports]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I love the tone of the letter:
Glenn - Had you contacted us for comment prior to posting your story - or done a little research yourself - you would know that ABC News and Brian Ross did in fact update and clarify our original Friday, October 26, 2001 Anthrax/Bentonite report and quickly.
Awesome. I can just picture him sitting there, stamping this out as he thinks, "stupid insignificant blogger".
So he starts with a you're-not-a-real-journalistic because you didn't contact me or do research, you know, to put you in your place. Clearly, he thinks a response would simply be exciting enough for a 'blogger'. Why else would he have lobbed such a lame response?
This is awesome Glenn. I've been a salon subscriber for years, and your addition is perfect for this magazine. Thanks for the hard work.
-
another thought:
[Read the article: Response from ABC News re: the Saddam-anthrax reports]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]White House: Trust us, this time the strategy will work.
ABC News: Trust us, this time our sources are right.
Both seem to come, not from reality, or even with thought about context and history, but more with an overwhelming sense of righteousness. Expected perhaps from political ideologues. Scary from media.
-
What if it works
[Read the article: Iraq: American public opinion vs. a "small but powerful group"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I hate the 'what if it works' question.
It's a hypothetical question meant to change the course of the argument. What if it works is a nasty curveball, whose only real answer is another question, "what if it doesn't", but it takes the argument to the level of a 10-year old.
If someone asks 'what if it works', they are out of options in the debate. Chances are good, it's because they didn't really have any to begin with.
It reminds me of the Christians who go to see a Richard Dawkins speech and then ask him, incredulously, "What if you're wrong?"