Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
saburai
Published Letters: 48
Mr. Greenwald just wrote or quoted 1300 words about a politician using the F-word to describe the appointment of Rahm Emanuel.
Mr. Greenwald still hasn't written a single word about the appointment of Rahm Emanuel (except a disapproving mention, three days ago, that some anonymous comments on Daily Kos defended Emanuel's selection by arguing that it was ok, by definition, because Obama did it).
Scarborough is a hypocrite on the use of the word f*ck. Ok, we understand that crucial update.
Now how about commenting on the actual news here: The selection of an Iraq super-hawk as Obama's first staff choice? The silence on this page is getting noticeable, if not deafening.
The war in Iraq is not legal. The F-word, I think, still is. Priorities?
Just go ahead and email me each morning the topic that you think is Most Important and I'll be sure to write about that one and no other. -Glenn Greenwald
My god, Mr. Greenwald. I know we're living in the age of irony, but is it possible in this day and age to respond to a piece of criticism with anything other than dismissive sarcasm?
I'm obviously not suggesting that you take your marching orders every morning from me. I'm POINTING OUT that there is an important issue here (Obama's first staff selection) and an fairly UNIMPORTANT issue (the idiotic hypocrisy of an F-bomb crusader who got caught using the word on TV). You seem to be prioritizing the latter, and I'm making a point of the oddness of this. Instead of defending your choice, you chose to erect a straw man, intentionally misconstrue my point, and then pout about it. Good grief.
Par for a blogger, perhaps, but I expected better from you.
To be fair, there was extra heat on this because you're like the 1,412th person to post a comment of the form "instead of posting about this, why don't you post about this other thing, which I think is far more important."
OK, thanks for being fair. But you're mischaracterizing my criticism. Greenwald DID post about the Rahm appointment, and in doing so, he just happened to post about a weirdly tangential, inconsequential part of it. I don't think my post was a "why doncha write about my pet peeve, the appointment of a rabid pro-Iraq war hawk", it was more like a "ok, you're going to write about the Emanuel appointment...and what's all this about F-bombs?"
It was a criticism about WHAT Greenwald had to say about an important topic. Specifically, that he had gone off following a tangent instead of actually addressing the topic at hand. Maybe he gets a hundred such criticisms each day, but he chose to respond to mine, and did so inadequately with a flippant burst of sarcasm (in my opinion). Of course, he's under no obligation to be respectful or civil to his correspondents, but I sort of expected him to be. Incorrectly.
I happen to think it's presumptuous to tell a writer what to write about. In my mind, that's not "criticism," it's more a kind of whining.
Frankly, if we're "whining" when we write anything critical of Greenwald's topic selection, then I don't see the point of having open boards available at all. I'm a writer (of this letter, at least), and you're telling me I shouldn't have written any criticism of Greenwald's post. Does that make you "presumptuous" for deigning to disagree with what I chose to write? No, clearly not. It's called open discussion.
Reading the first paragraph,
"On his live MSNBC show this morning, former GOP Rep. Joe Scarborough used the phrase "fuck you" when discussing Obama's appointment of Rahm Emanuel"
it seemed reasonable to hope that Greenwald's post was going to be about whether or not Emanuel's selection constituted a "fuck you" to Obama's antiwar supporters (this is still an open question, in my opinion). I hoped the headline foretold an article about how Scarborough, a pro-war idiot, was being revealed as a hypocrite for criticizing the pro-war Chief of Staff pick.
In other words, my first thought was that this would be a substantive post on Emanuel, yes.
Instead it was a long diatribe about the f-word.
Whatever, I'm over it. I got my hopes up, they were frustrated. Greewald got sarcastic about it and now you are too, apparently. I don't have much more to say on the topic. C'est la vie, par for a blog, but I had hoped for more here.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
