- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Letters posted here are associated with the following Salon Premium Member:
Published Letters: 3
It is possible that WaPo editors honestly believe (1) that terrorists will attack innocent United States civilians at random if we do not continue to wage war in Afghanistan and (2) that the uninsured are to blame for their own failure to obtain health insurance and, consequently, (3) that additional debt is justified to protect the potential victims of hypothetical terrorism, but not justified to protect the inevitable victims of preventable or treatable disease. You and I may believe otherwise, both as a prediction of the future and as a matter of moral values, but the WaPo editorial position is neither necessarily dishonest nor logically inconsistent.
Sounds like Glenn got an early peak of the first episode in the next season of South Park.
The test for success for these people is whether they make money, not whether they somehow serve the "public interest". What the heck is the "public interest"? No one can tell, no one can measure it. You can measure the size of your bank account, on the other hand. These people are crooks, who do not think like most people. You shouldn't expect them to respond to your human-oriented criticisms. They are amoral money-making machines. The only way to stop them is to stop giving them money. Fortunately, network television news is dying as its viewers die and are not replaced.
