Letters to the Editor
Scientician
Published Letters: 525 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Gordon's edits
[Read the article: Michael Gordon trains his stenographer weapons on Iran]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And it is why Mr G and his comment section are needed. Is it too hopefully naive of me to extrapolate a causal relationship between Mr G's column this morning and Gordon's edit?
I think not, though it would be imperious for the NY Times to react to Glenn's posting, but not give him any credit, response or notice that they read it.
At least several other news orgs Glenn has critiqued actually responded to him.
It's clear that his place on Salon has given him a place at the table. The far end of the table, but they do evidently take his critiques seriously, now that he's with a serious online magazine instead of a "blog". Perhaps that's all places like DailyKos need to do: Rebrand themselves as "online magazines" and suddenly the media will fall overthemselves to have them on as guests.
As to Glenn ever appearing on Matthews, absent a statement from Glenn that he wouldn't go on for his own reasons, I'd say there is some chance of it. However, he won't get the full hour. I only hold out hope since Salon's editor is on Scarborough regularly, so it's not out of the realm of possibility one of salon's most popular columnists could also ascend to network TV at some point.
I was hoping the Daily Show or Colbert would have him on to talk about his book though.
-
I am anecdotal proof
[Read the article: The tragic collapse of America's standing in the world]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm a Canadian who was unusually pro-American through the 90s (the beginning of my political awareness). I remember enough of the cold war that I feared the soviet union as a child, and was grateful the brave Americans were protecting my country.
I wrote university essays arguing that the 1991 Gulf War was a classic "Just War" and defended the 1999 Kosovo humanitarian intervention with some pride.
I thought Americans were a little too brash, and the flag waving overt patriotism bugged me, but my views were summed up as "they're the best world hyperpower we could hope to have."
Events of the past 7 years have most definitely impacted my opinion. While I follow US politics enough to know there are many Americans striving to correct the nation's awful course these past few years, I cannot claim this has not tarnished my view of America as a whole. It is an indictment that so many people voted to re-elect Bush in 2004, whether he stole it or not, lots and lots of people did vote him in 2004, which is a mystifying mentality. Kerry was right that the whole world practically was rooting for him, and that includes lots and lots of people who wish well on America. And it wasn't because we loved Kerry for himself. So it's not like Bush had everyone fooled. Maybe in 2000 it was forgivable, but not after what we already knew in 2004.
Anyway, the 2006 election was a start in repairing your image, but the Dems actually have to deliver some serious foreign policy changes. And the way the Republicans are now, there isn't a single Republican running for President who will do anything at all to repair your image. Some of the Dems will most likely fail to also, but the Republicans for sure will not. There is a difference between the parties, the only question is, is there enough of one among the current batch of Democratic leaders? The Rank and file Dems do get it, but the party has been adrift for too long unware of how far right (ie "wrong") it had moved.
Maybe Americans don't care what the world thinks, and that's a position one can take, but it would validate a lot of the anti-American rhetoric too.
It certainly becomes contradictory to be for things like "spreading freedom" but voting for people who make American democracy look like a bad idea. If you want an Otto Von Bismark foreign policy classical realist in office, fine, just don't tell yourself you're trying to win some war of ideas with "Islamo-fascism" - you're accepting your nation as a self-interested empire. Maybe that's all it ever was, or maybe that's the best position going forward, but that's certainly not been the American case to the world up to now.
Finally, in the bits of the poll Glenn posted, there is some bitter irony in that the fellow anglo nations Canada and Britain are less supportive of the US led war on terror than are the supposed flies in the US ointment, France and Germany (though all have majorities against it).
The people who get you the most out there are the most perturbed by what is going on.
And we really are paying attention. I am not bragging to make the claim that the average Canadian or Briton knows far more about US politics than the average American would know about Canada or Britain. It's a natural consequence of the US being the superpower. But it does mean our view of the US is at least a semi-educated one.