Letters to the Editor
-
Re: Orbitboy
I just now had time to plow through the other comments, and I see that the issue of "respect and admiration" for Krauthammer was raised very early on by someone else, and though Glenn responded, he did not address the issue, nor do you.
Having a column or a perch on the teevee does not necessarily translate to "respect and admiration." Surely you recognize that as well as anyone.
Among whom, for example, is Michael Savage "respected and admired?" I bring him up specifically because, in fact, on his radio show he has been hammering the exact points (or ravings) about the VT massacre as Krauthammer. Glenn asked, "Is there a single individual anywhere who exploited these shootings more shamelessly for political gain...?" And I answer, yes: Michael Savage.
I'm sure there are many more.
But how does this translate in any way to "respect and admiration?"
Savage, for one, is personna non grata on the teevee after his meltdown for MSNBC. Yet his lunatic ravings are mirrored by and mirror Krauthammer all the time (both claim some sort of medical/psychological expertise don't cha know).
But try convincing anyone this translates to "respect and admiration."
What it translates to is "entertainment," controversy, and... income.
-
Fox News, via Kurtz
According to Howie (Mr. Sheri Annis) Kurtz, Fox News Senior Vice President John Moody writes, "We see no reason to continue assaulting the public with these disturbing and demented images." I guess that means he's finally cancelling O'Reilly, Hannity, Gibson, et al, right? RIGHT?!?!?!
-
Dear Mr. Greenwald,
I recognize that Dr. Krauthammer is published in several mainstream publications, but surely you are familiar with the old medical school saying:
Those who specialize in psychiatry do so because they need it?
While this is not 100% applicable, it is often the case. Considering Dr. Krauthammer's career path it may be more true than not for him, and may account for his blind spots. I do not know if his training required that he undergo psychoanalysis himself - if the residency is not psychoanalytically based it usually does not - but my experience has been that those psychiatrists are more in touch with themselves.
The point of the above is that Dr. Krauthammer can only be well-respected, if he is, for his political insights if any. His inappropriate use of his outdated, and they are very outdated, medical credentials is extremely unprofessional and for those with professional knowledge detracts rather than adds to his insights.
I am sure that the Doctor before his name is useful to him, but it's important to remember that his medical expertise is 30 years out of date and his use of that expertise unethical.
-
Respect
[Glenn, from the post]: Among our media stars, few pundits command as much respect and admiration as Charles Krauthammer does.
We're all allowed (for the time being) our own mind, judgement, and opinions ... although such may not be conducive to keeping a job as a US attorney.
As for me, I wouldn't pi$$ on the guy if he was on fire.
I think that you mean "respect and admiration from the cocktail-weenie crew". I'll wager a bet that Jon Stewart beats Krauthammer in a landslide if you ask the general population.
Cheers,
-
I Don't Get Your Argument?
I noticed the same thing Krauthammer noted, that Cho clearly appropriated the imagery of the jihadi nuts who crank out snuff films and post them to the internet. But I never would have made a political connection. And, even if I did, it would be a ding against the Bushies for unleashing this particular genie from the bottle, making jihadism more viable because their policies, not less.
I don't know the mental state of the jihadis who video tape themselseves as they slit people's throats then post the footage online. But it's pretty clear Cho was mentally disturbed. And it's pretty clear that the media, in showing the footage he sent to NBC, is exploiting a mentally ill person and causing additional trauma to the family of his victims, to Cho's family, indeed to anyone who has a family member or friend who is mentally ill (there but for the grace of God and all that). Cho's stuff could have been posted online and then reported without the visuals.
Best case, Krauthammer made a valid point clumsily. Worst case, you're right and he's trying to score political points. But I don't know how this particular point hurts Democrats. And I think it's human nature to inject politics in these situations. How else are we to evaluate possible solutions? Yes, he's a hypocrite for saying let's not talk politics then apparently talking politics. But I see politics as a necessary and critical part of incorporating lessons learned here.
-
Re: Respect
Having a column or a perch on the teevee does not necessarily translate to "respect and admiration." Surely you recognize that as well as anyone.
Savage, for one, is personna non grata on the teevee after his meltdown for MSNBC.
If one's status in the puditocracy is not measured by their tv perch and column syndication reach, how else is it measured, exactly? Bring up Michael Savage proves my point. He's not respected because of how he behaves. Just because he agrees with CK on this issue doesn't really make any difference. You could argue that CK is no Gearge Will, but I'd say that's splitting hairs. That's fine if you and your circle of friends have no respect for CK. I don't either, and neither do any of my friends. Nor does anyone I respect, for that matter. But if CK did not enjoy respect at the highest level of the Beltway gang, he would not be a Washington Post columnist, and would not be writing for Time.
-
Re: Glenn Greewald re: usmlrf
Of course he thinks his points are important, otherwise he wouldn't make them. But the whole point of his column today (did you read it?) is that nobody should try to make points -- important or not, valid or not -- out of the VT shootings. And he says that's especially true for those who don't wait a decent interval between the shootings and the point-making.
He isn't arguing against the drawing of invalid political conclusions from the shootings. He's arguing against the drawing of political conclusions of any kind, valid or otherwise.
I hadn't read it, assuming that the relevant points were contained in your quotations. Having read it, I feel that it only bolsters my point. That is, I think he believes that some talk about the shootings is acceptable and some isn't -- "even less" should be said, but that's not nothing.
That may sound like quibbling, but unless you posit brain damage, he clearly knows that he spends paragraphs 3-6 of his column discussing gun control and pschiatric policy. His main objection, on the other hand, is directed towards presidential candidates (and other such figures) using the shootings to make points on unrelated topics.
There are a variety of views behind this, I think: that it's worse if it's tangetially related (Darfur) rather than directly related (psychiatry), and it's worse if the person making the point is a national figure (Obama) rather than some guy (which, for the present purposes, he considers himself [yes, erroneously, I know]). Thus speculations by a minor figure about the psychology of the killer don't count as the sort of thing he is most inveighing against.
Meta: I find myself in a very odd position, defending this creep. But my point is not to justify his position (his arguments are clearly junk), but to try to better understand how the hell these people think. Obviously he himself was earlier trying to get "ideological mileage" out of the tragedy to support his own deranged views about "islamic terrorists", but it's important, I think, to understand better how he (and people in similar positions) could fail to perceive such rank hypocrisy. The point isn't to learn to sypathize, though, but to understand the enemy, particular if your enemy is deranged. The blog here tends to focus on arguing with the nutjobs, but I think it is equally important to understand how these people justify their nuttinesses to themselves.