Letters to the Editor
mattrhames
Published Letters: 43 Editor's Choice: 2
-
re: Orson_
[Read the article: National Review's new tough guy, Mark Hemingway]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]1) "High road/low road" -- I'm not concerned with morality here, but with rational arguments. It is tactically superior to make more effective arguments rather than joining in the childish name-calling of your opponents. Many of the comments here have echoed the same sentiments: "They started it!" and "Oh yeah, well, YOU are fat and effeminate. So there." Of course, everyone feels justified in making these personal attacks because Hemingway, et al., always launch pathetic personal attacks. "Now it's our turn!" or something. Childish.
When I first saw the picture, this was my initial reaction, and your post put it into words. Glenn is rhetorically amazing (you are Glenn) and posting the picture didn't add to the argument in any way. Glenn's argument is sound even if Hemingway had a six-pack of abs.
And yet, as I thought about it, I thought about the frames in which these arguments tend to live. The frame of the 'macho' republican and the frame of the sissy, hippie, tree-hugger liberal. The frame that allows people to suggest liberals idea of foreign policy is giving people hugs.
These are strong, well-entrenched frames. So, what exactly has taking the high road achieved? Well-entrenched frames.
so perhaps straight up mockery, and this is what posting Hemingway's picture was, could be an effective way to break the frames. Tough writer Hemingway doesn't fit the tough guy frame in real life.
When these are shattered, and we no longer immediately think of Republicans as Brush Clearing Ranchers and Liberals as Silver-spoon intellectuals, perhaps we can go back to the high road. Until then, lets continue to show pictures that don't fit into frames.
-
Sell-out
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When the NHL needed an American City to host an outdoor Hockey event, they picked the city they knew would sell-out in half an hour. The fact that it sold out so fast became the news. They picked a city that loves it's team. And they quietly asked fans in Southern Ontario to buy tickets. They got what they wanted. And I got tickets.
-
Give to Dodd
[Read the article: Chris Dodd's leadership vs. Clinton and Obama's game playing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In order to get on the news cycle, he needs donations. Give $5. Give anything. it's unfortunate that we actually have to reward a senator for doing his damn job, but that's where we're at. Obama and Clinton hope to get under the radar, but they might end up saying they'll support a fillibuster. Still, that isn't leading. That's caving.
-
Colin Powell
[Read the article: Petraeus named second most influential "conservative"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Remember, there was a thought from "Serious people" that he might actually be a democrat when he retired.
-
Thank Dodd
[Read the article: Mukasey's nomination and the sudden opposition to "waterboarding"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's wrong, in my opinion to think this grand stand is because for these Senators, this lawlessness is sinking in. To think that means thinking they were bumbling morons before who didn't understand the consequences of their inaction (or votes for things like the Military Commissions act.)
No, it's a pure copycat move. They watched Chris Dodd take a stand and get rewarded for it. They are pandering to the "We care about the constitution crowd"
Think about that. One Senator actually does his job of protecting the constitution, gets rewarded for it, and then inspires other senators to do their jobs.
I can't decide if this is good or pathetic. I guess it's good that they are finally standing up for something. But it seems bad because of what's motivating them. That GG didn't applaud them is right -- it's their job!
-
Is this a stunt?
[Read the article: Democrats in big, big trouble because of the Great Iraq War -- again]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Do the board of directors or managers of WAPO sit in a boardroom wondering what they can say that will get attention? Let's suggest to Howie that he write that Dems are in trouble because the Surge is working. He'll do it because he's bought in, but more importantly, he knows that the netroots will engage him. Talking head shows will invite him on to talk about it.
Even bad press is good press for Howie and WAPO.
Look, I'm fully bought into the beltway closed world. So I'll suggest that perhaps Howie doesn't know that the reason he's encouraged to write that the surge is working is because it creates buzz. Perhaps he really does believe it. But that makes him as steadfast and unthinking as GW. And I'm not sure that that's right.
I wonder if it's really just about being in the limelight. And for the money crunchers, it's just about clicks and links.
Seriously. As Glenn said, this is inane. But there's a good business case to be made for getting linked by blogs on the left and right by throwing up something like this.