Letters to the Editor
-
Good points, but I don't agree with everything
I can accept Glenn's argument that the post is about the lack of ethics by those exploiting the controversey and the controversey is not the point and his reasons for not judging Fire Dog Lake.
Glenn's post is the start of a conversation and I think it's okay to go beyond agreeing that Dan Gerstein is a sham expert who should not get media time. For me, the issue is what tools Dan Gerstein uses to manipulate the media.
In this case it's this thoughtless image and the weak justification for it.
I think Chris Muir's use of Hilary in blackface is utter BS and further proves he's a talentless right wing hack, and I found this the image offensive. I don't buy the convoluted explanations of how the image wasn't racist at all.
It was a charged image calculated to offend, that people did not react as expected doesn't make their reactions invalid. You don't have to be right wing to find it charged.
I'd give Hamsher a complete pass on it as it seems a unique lapse in judgment were it not for the "yes, but" apology and justifications by of others, which I knew would end up being used against the left in the future - and it has, by weasels like Dan Gerstein and Chris Muir.
I understand why it is hard for we on the left to get worked up over our transgressions when the right is far worse. I also know how hard it is for anyone to admit when they are wrong.
But the Bushies greatest sins are how they can't admit when they're wrong, even if it was an honest mistake, their flagrant convoluted hipocrisy and their willingness to split hairs at key moments, like half-apologies like "mistakes were made" and "if anyone was offended" (which puts the blame on the offended).
So it bugs me when my side, has trouble walking the walk as well. I don't think it is over the top to confront this. Especially if it helps defuse the methods of evasion the right uses.