Letters to the Editor
Arvin Hill
Published Letters: 55 Editor's Choice: 2
-
For Mr. Spud
[Read the article: On to New Hampshire]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I tend to avoid cross-talk on blog comments, Mr. Spud, but to illustrate a point, I'll make an exception this time.
You must be kidding. Do you know you sound like a lunatic?
I'm absolutely certain I sound like a lunatic to many people.
OF COURSE Joan would "consider" a role in a Clinton administration if it was offered.
Thank you for providing your opinion. But opinion is all it is, and that's not what I was looking for. Only one person could provide an answer, and, to my knowledge, you are not that person.
For what it's worth, that question is no longer on the table. Nor was it in my last comment. The attentive person will notice I only asked the question once.
Whether Joan would, wouldn't or doesn't if she would consider a cabinet post know pales next to her unwillingness to answer the question. It may appear to you and others here as just another game of gotcha, but only if you're willing to discount or ignore the larger context of reader feedback; specifically, a widespread perception of a closeted editorial bias strongly favoring Senator Clinton. Instead of providing an answer, Joan danced like a rabbit in an electrified cage to conjure the illusion of an answer. A non-answer to a simple, straightforward question. Maybe you've seen Tony Snow or Scott McClellan or Mike McCurry do it. It is entirely possible you failed to notice when they did.
Who the hell wouldn't?
I wouldn't.
But, as she made clear to anyone who's not a paranoid nut, its not something she's looking for.
This paranoid nut did not ask that question. I am not objecting to Joan revealing her intent. In fact, I would have welcomed that disclosure had it not been provided in lieu of an answer to a clear, unambiguous question. Instead, she chose to be evasive. In the context of the latest round of readers questioning her objectivity, revisiting that response was not inappropriate, particularly since Joan herself said she would refer readers to it (the post I cited) when the subject was again raised. I simply saved her the time and effort required to do exactly that.
Guess what? She would no doubt "consider" a role in an Obama or Edwards administration too, if offered.
I did not ask that question.
Are you 15 years old?
No, I am not.
But the tone of your response suggests you aren't a big fan of open, direct dialogue. I am. Which is why I sometimes ask questions, answer questions and make comments in formats where it remains possible to do so.
In fact, if you have any additional questions you would like me to answer, I will be happy to provide you with honest, non-evasive answer, although it would be rude to extend a our conversation in Joan's blog. That said, you are more than welcome to find your way to Arvin Hill's Carnival of Horror and give it a shot.
-
Oh, Stewart & Colbert ARE scabs, alright. Et tu?
[Read the article: Stewart rambles, Colbert rallies! ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Still tuning in, are you?
Typical "progressive" fakery. All moral posturing with no commitment.
What a pretty little package.
Forced back to work. That's the phrase liberals are using to justify the actions of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Talk about disingenuous. These guys didn't have to go back to work. Had they refused until a resolution, Viacom would've had to have been very, very careful about challenging them, in no small part because of the massive amount of public support either of them are capable of martialing.
As things played out, they returned to work - and, in doing so, weakened the strike's effect and the efforts of the very people they imply they support.
To believe they were forced back to work is to be a sucka. It's understandable their fans would prefer to characterize their return as being forced back to work. It's not like I'm unsympathetic. First there's no Santa. Now this.
Instead of directing the condemnation where it belongs - and God forbid anyone consider individual responsibity - the common refrain is "Sure, Stewart & Colbert are union members, but but but...
The only but that matters?
"... but, as a viewer, I want my entertainment. And I'll find any number of ways to justify my favorite liberal icons crossing picket lines in defiance of their own union's strike. Avoid watching? Hell no. Why should I have to endure the excruciating hardship of refraining from four hours of television every week until there's a resolution?"
Viewers of The Colbert Report and The Daily Show - millions of 'em - have bitched incessantly about Democratic politicians being unprincipled, spineless, corrupt traitors to liberalism for seven long years. But it's perfectly okay for these same viewers to refrain from exercising solidarity with the striking writers, even if it means becoming scabs themselves. Regardless of the mental gymnastics employed to assuage the conscience that knows better, the viewer - a real Friend of Labor, no doubt - tuning into Stewart and Colbert IS crossing a virtual picket line.
The next time you bitch about what weasels your Democratic representatives are, look in the mirror and be grateful you have a party which reflects its constituency just as capably as the ones conservatives have.
Some things really are as simple as they seem: As long as the strike is ongoing and you're watching The Daily Show and/or The Colbert Report, you're a scab.
If you're comfortable with that designation, no problem.
If you're not, don't blame me. That's your Conscience talking.