Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 211 Editor's Choice: 44
-
The Basic Explanation
[Read the article: David Brooks' fictitious defense of his industry's behavior]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]seems to be that Stephanopoulos and Gibson didn't want to face the criticism from Drudge and Hannity and O'Reilly that they hadn't asked Clinton and Obama about all these things. And that, to them, is far more important than any personal integrity in terms of how to structure the debate or what the voters of Pennsylvania might want to know (compare Broder's reporting).
It reminds me of the novels I've read where the main character would break up with her boyfriend because, although he was great for her and she loved him, he didn't have a good haircut and good clothes and the friends she looked up to (who couldn't care less about her happiness) didn't like him. Rather than show some journalistic integrity and independence, they'd rather pander to certain of their critics. And then idiots like Brooks stand up for them because they equate what Hannity and Drudge and O'Reilly are interested in to what the people are interested in, since those are the people they hang out with.
The only remarkable thing in all this is that the firestorm about how insipid this all was has actually shown some legs, been mentioned in the MSM, gotten some people's attention (even if only to dismiss it).
It would be a damn shame if we couldn't use the opportunity of an Obama-McCain race to have an adult discussion as a nation about the war and why we're there and whether we should get out. Notwithstanding Mr. Brooks' comments (and echoing Broder's), I think the American people are eager for just such a campaign. And I think if the echo chamber would stop and hold Mr. Straight Talk Express to his nickname, and demand such a campaign, that we might actually have it.
Of course, I also believe in the Easter Bunny (j/k).
-
The Basic Explanation
[Read the article: David Brooks' fictitious defense of his industry's behavior]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]seems to be that Stephanopoulos and Gibson didn't want to face the criticism from Drudge and Hannity and O'Reilly that they hadn't asked Clinton and Obama about all these things. And that, to them, is far more important than any personal integrity in terms of how to structure the debate or what the voters of Pennsylvania might want to know (compare Broder's reporting).
It reminds me of the novels I've read where the main character would break up with her boyfriend because, although he was great for her and she loved him, he didn't have a good haircut and good clothes and the friends she looked up to (who couldn't care less about her happiness) didn't like him. Rather than show some journalistic integrity and independence, they'd rather pander to certain of their critics. And then idiots like Brooks stand up for them because they equate what Hannity and Drudge and O'Reilly are interested in to what the people are interested in, since those are the people they hang out with.
The only remarkable thing in all this is that the firestorm about how insipid this all was has actually shown some legs, been mentioned in the MSM, gotten some people's attention (even if only to dismiss it).
It would be a damn shame if we couldn't use the opportunity of an Obama-McCain race to have an adult discussion as a nation about the war and why we're there and whether we should get out. Notwithstanding Mr. Brooks' comments (and echoing Broder's), I think the American people are eager for just such a campaign. And I think if the echo chamber would stop and hold Mr. Straight Talk Express to his nickname, and demand such a campaign, that we might actually have it.
Of course, I also believe in the Easter Bunny (j/k).
-
Jake Tapper . . .Name Rings a Bell
[Read the article: David Brooks' fictitious defense of his industry's behavior]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I guess network news jobs change everyone, huh?
-
Economic Stimulus
[Read the article: McCain's gassy tax relief]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I remember a few years back when NCAA basketball coaches were arguing for an extra scholarship so as to help some poor kid get an education. My take on it was that if I were solving the problem of poor kids getting an education, I wouldn't give out that education based on which kid could shoot a jumpshot best.
If I were looking for economic stimulus, I wouldn't be looking for a way to have people buy more gasoline. The one area of the economy that does not need a jumpstart is the petroleum sector. They don't need more of our spending, they don't need more money, and people don't need an incentive to use their cars more.
I sympathize with those who cannot afford expensive gasoline, but the price isn't going to diminish significantly with this handout. And the handout will go to everyone, not just the poor; in fact it will disproportionately benefit the rich, who drive bigger cars and have more money to spend on gas anyway. At least where I live, the gas prices in poor neighborhoods are higher--by more than the amount of the federal gas tax--than in the suburbs.
This makes a great publicity slash, while being about as poor a public policy as I can imagine.
-
Dayenu
[Read the article: Bill Kristol, great man of sacrifice, on the duties of Passover]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If you go through everyone's favorite Seder song (well, almost everyone; I'm a "Echad My Yodaya" fan myself), you don't see an awful lot of sacrifice. An interesting part is where it goes through how we were fed in the wildnerness for 40 years, which would have been sufficient, but we were also fed with manna. It's like saying you got MREs to eat, but they were catered by Chez Panisse.
But I'm sure Kristol goes to a different seder than I.