Letters to the Editor
blunderdog
Published Letters: 509 Editor's Choice: 10
-
All Wrong
[Read the article: The Internet is making us stupid]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The "echo chamber" effect is all well and good, but to suggest that the Internet is part of that problem is absurd.
The Internet provides instant access to all forms of opinions and journalism. That people CHOOSE not to use it in that way has nothing to do with the Internet and everything to do with the PEOPLE.
This has not changed. In the pre-Internet days, the very same people who are interested in reading/seeing a wide array of opinions had a much harder time doing so. They'd have to buy books, really, or seek out "alternative" press outlets. In many parts of America, there's no market for those perspectives.
The Internet permits you to read O'Reilly about a given subject and then instantly go check out what Keillor has to say.
So most people don't do that. Surprise surprise. Most people really aren't interested in the functioning of the republic, either.
That's the "problem" that we should be talking about, not the Internet. The Internet is at best a symptom.
(Purely visceral response--that guy's a bonehead.)
-
If the Media Covered Sports...
[Read the article: Sizing up the Democratic race so far]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...the way they cover elections, would anyone read the sports pages?
It might be interesting to spends months discussing who's winning the game that's going to be played next fall, but why would people want to listen to journalists when, in the absence of real hard facts, they could just talk to their friends?
I think it's interesting that in the US, there's a strong social discouragement to discuss politics in many situations: at work, parties, the dinner table. People can (and do) discuss sports absolutely everywhere, and there's a gigantic media dedicated to covering it. It covers its subject incredibly well. The most detailed assessments are made of actual events, records are kept, and commentators usually support their opinions with several specific examples.
On the politics beat, people report stories. They can really get away with a lot.
-
Ron Paul, Truth to Power
[Read the article: Ron Paul distortions and smears]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ron Paul is called "crazy" all the time for acknowledging and openly stating all the simple truths that our culture has been trying to beat out of our heads for the past 30 years.
It's really hard not to like the guy--not so much for his views or policies, but just because he's actually speaking about "real life" in his speeches. Unlike most of the sound-bytes with no semantic content we hear from EVERYONE in American politics.
In a general election between Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul, I'd be crazy to vote for Hillary.
Of course, there's about as much chance of Paul winning the Republican nomination as Kucinich taking the Democrat one, and in a contest between Hil and ...well, whoever else from that Rogues' Gallery, I'd have to go with the Democrat.
-
An Interesting Tangent
[Read the article: Obama goes for the capillaries]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why hasn't Salon endorsed Hil, anyway?
-
This Builds on the Science
[Read the article: Torture may have led to Pearl murder suspect's death]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Onion recently published the results of scientific inquiry into the effects of stabbing on monkeys. Apparently, there is very strong evidence that monkeys who are stabbed show consistent and severe injuries which lead to death.
Anyway, if you're going to torture someone, isn't "to the death" the only right way to do it? What's the point, otherwise?
-
Nice!
[Read the article: Did Rupert help Rudy?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Anything bad for Giuliani's shot at nomination is a joy to see.
So did she lie? I mean, is she now claiming to have obstructed justice or whatever it was that she had to talk to the Feds about?
If so, it might make the charges more damaging.
If a news corp starts to run into legal trouble, will it betray its political connections to protect itself?
-
Well Said
[Read the article: Rudy Giuliani's anti-urban ad?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't think there's much that's perilous about this. Think about it. Is Rudy going to get New York City's vote? No. --CT Voter
Rudy, the mayor who did such great work in NYC and was a superhero during 9/11 and all that...and his own city won't vote for him for preznit.
Too bad this fact won't get the proper respect it deserves.
-
Comment for Baldie
[Read the article: Mitt Romney: Perfect tough guy for right-wing war cheerleaders]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What is the difference between supporting the WoT Part 1: Afghanistan (the part that enjoyed broader support, for very good reasons), and not volunteering, and supporting Vietnam and not volunteering? I think this is worth taking a shot at, because I can't say it's instantly clear to me.
The war in Vietnam could be presented as a war against another sovereign army. It is possible that the vast majority of able-bodied young men can be rapidly employed to shoot at enemy soldiers.
The WoT that should have taken place in Afghanistan was never properly begun. What should have happened was an extended intelligence and special forces campaign focused on "al Qaeda" or whatever you wanted to call bin Laden's group of terrorists. CIA resources had built Tora Bora, and yet we did not sweep those complexes with troops.
The Taliban were an irrelevance in the actual war on terror, and we never should have bothered destroying them.
That's why there was less drive to volunteer: the battle that was being fought was wrong, and most people aren't suited for the kind of work involved in the right battle. A draft or mass enlistment is not going to produce large numbers of effective military intelligence and special forces troops who would have been the right people to either bring bin Laden to justice, or, failing that, kill him.
-
Oops.
[Read the article: Mitt Romney: Perfect tough guy for right-wing war cheerleaders]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The first paragraph of that last post was supposed to be blockquoted, from Baldie Mac Eagle's post.
-
Since the Court Case is Off the Table...
[Read the article: Southwest: Cover up! Playboy: Take it off!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This woman is a joke, tho not for her nudity or scantily-claddedness.
She was going SUE Southwest in an attempt to GET MONEY because someone spoke to her about her outfit. That didn't work out, so she had to find another way to get money.
Taking off her clothes for Playboy is how she should've started this from the beginning...although perhaps she did, and they told her she's really not good-looking enough for Playboy without some hilarious notoriety.
(I'd have her pegged more for Cheri or Hustler, really, but it's been awhile since I checked either of those titles.)
-
Alas
[Read the article: Did Fox News chief Ailes try to protect Rudy Giuliani?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is far too complex a tale to create a stink which ends up sticking to Giuliani.