Letters to the Editor
uncle ovipositor
Published Letters: 74 Editor's Choice: 5
-
Wright on!
[Read the article: I was wrong about Wright]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Kudos for getting not one but two headlines out of the Wright/wrong bit. That's always gonna be funny. Can I suggest you do a column about Obama snubbing him and title it "It's the Wrong Time to be Wright"? How about and article about how much republicans like him titled "The Right's alright with Wright"? Or maybe you can find some common ancestry between Obama and Wright and you can put up a header that reads, "Two wrongs don't make a Wright".
I'm just getting started, but the possibilities are endless - especially in the hands of a professional journalist such as yourself. I can see why you're going with it. You really do have the Wright stuff.
I think I just read you for the annoyance factor at this point, but for the most part I agree with a lot of what you're saying in this post. I buy the idea that Obama's commitment to his church is based more on politics than theology, and that now his chickens are coming home to roost in the media.
I also think it doesn't matter. You and Fox are very concerned with it, but in general... It's not a carpet you want to be lifting. None of the presidential candidates has a particularly attractive set of religious affiliations, and to be shocked by Obama's church depends on ignoring everyone else's. And honestly, your myopic focus on it makes it pretty well meaningless, and about the only reaction it inspires from me is the urge to walk over to your offices and demand my money back. (Or even better, demand that I get the Salon that I subscribed to, and not the bizarre freak show it's turned into. Ah well, a boy can dream, can't he?)
But hey - from my perspective anybody who believes in an all powerful man in the sky who controls our lives believes something that's clearly crazy. It's not a big step from there to thinking race determines how one's brain functions.
-
Obama wronged by Wright
[Read the article: Obama "outraged" by Wright]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... you missed a golden chance to continue a theme, there.
-
The problem with your post
[Read the article: Why the Jeremiah Wright story deserves more attention]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The only thing missing from your post is a Wright/wrong play on words for the title. Like, "It's the Wright time to be wrong," or "Wright to the point," or "Wright here, Wright now." Maybe even, "The Wright-ing is on the wall"
Please be sure to let us know where you end up working - I look forward to reading your columns in the future, where ever it is you land.
-
on the Wright track now
[Read the article: George Bush is John McCain's Rev. Wright]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And here I was worried that you wouldn't be able to drag Wright into another column. You're on a run, don't let reality stop you.
Like many others here, I'm in awe of your myopic obsession. Regardless of what the actual polling says, the issue to us is Wright. Regardless of a bazillion other important things going on in the world, you're going after Wright. Because you're convinced that you've got a winner here. He's at least as bad as George Bush in your analysis.
Really - let's split the money on my subscription. Just credit me back the months left and we'll let it go.
-
@ debaser
[Read the article: George Bush is John McCain's Rev. Wright]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Please read the title of Ms. Walsh's blog post. It suggests a dichotomy between Wright and Bush, with Wright being the bar of measurement. It has very little to do with the article and is a highly selective interpretation of the polling on which the article is based.
I would call that equivalency. I would also call it part of a long and curious trend on Ms. Walsh's part. She is clearly obsessed, to the point where it is the only issue she seems to see anywhere.
I'm paying for the privilege of being insulted here, so I feel it's worth taking a few minutes to highlight why I think she's wrong. Salon, a magazine I love is being choked to death, here, and she's responsible. This article, while not her worst affront to journalism, is typically based on highly selective interpretation of facts (or at least polling data), and myopically dedicated to a subject that's well out of the sweep of the polling data itself.
Please explain to me why that deserves slack.
-
Thanks for your input
[Read the article: Did Sidney Blumenthal cross the line?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'll buy your argument that he has sent out emails like this for all of the time that you've known him, without any filtering or point - that he's sending out a list of significant stories from a given day, not filtering the news for people. I haven't seen any of these emails, so I can't say. And what's more that seems like a sensible journalistic practice.
I do still have some questions, though, and I'm hoping you might answer them.
1. Is it really only "a dozen or more" people who get these emails? Seems like the author of the Huffington Post piece wasn't one of a very few, but rather part of a very wide audience. He lists 22 people who get the emails, suggesting there are more. Seems like a lot to me.
2. Does it not seem hypocritical to send out clearly false information as news? Yes, we can assume people are capable of reading the stories and developing opinions on their own, but when Sidney Blumenthal sends out a link to an article about how Obama's got a secret communist mentor it does carry some weight. Again, I haven't seen any of these emails, so it may be a thorough round-up of what's being written at any given moment, but I do have to question it based on the original article.
If these are indeed personal emails and not sent on behalf of the campaign then this is a non-issue. But you understand that there is a grey area there, no? Republicans often go on about how they're just hanging with their (rich, oil executive) friends (with policy issues they care about being discussed in congress) and nobody should be reading anything into that. Just because his friends are politically connected doesn't mean he's not trying to exploit those connections.