Letters to the Editor
-
Democrats = warmongers
How is it that Brit Hume and so many others can say stuff like: "I mean, this is why the Democratic Party has had this reputation, going back decades, of really not being very serious about national defense. It's because they aren't," and be taken seriously? By anyone? What I want to know is, who are the Democrats he's referring to? Woodrow Wilson, arguably the first neocon? FDR, who was just itching to get into WWII and finally managed it? Truman, who sent troops to Korea without consulting congress in the slightest? Kennedy and Johnson, who armed us mightily against the USSR and embroiled us in Vietnam for the national security? Who ARE these wimpy Democrats Hume and others keep referring to?
-
Satire
I was going to write a satirical post criticizing Olbermann's background at ESPN being "indicative" of his lack of journalistic credentials, but it looks like CB beat me to it. That's one less thing for me to do today.
So when is anyone going to bring up Hume's favorite analogy that Iraq is safer than California because more people were murdered in California than soldiers in Iraq since the Iraq War started?
It just doesn't get any more dishonest--or retarded--than that. Hume's reply when called on it was, "Well, it may not be accurate, but it's indicative of something."
-
Not Like Rush! The Role of Roles In Civilized Discourse
Glenn:
(3) Claiming that Hume wears an "anchor" hat sometimes and a "commentator" hat other times does not distinguish his situation from Olbermann's. That is exactly the argument MSNBC is making about Olbermann:
Olbermann knows to leave his opinions at home when he anchors events, said Phil Griffin, NBC News senior vice president.
Keith's an adult," Griffin said. "He can tell when it's appropriate to express himself in a commentary and when to be a journalist. That's one of his strengths. He knows exactly the tone and his role when he's doing anything."
You were under the impression that you were rebutting MSNBC's argument to defend and distinguish Hume, but you were actually mimicking it. You're confused about what the issues are about which you're commenting and you think you're supporting an argument which is actually the opposite of the one you're making.
BTW, this is precisely what Rush Limbaugh failed to do, when he tried invading Olbermann's home turf of sports commentary.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/10/02/limbaugh/
Conservatives almost always have a problem with being role-appropriate. They just don't get it. And why should they? They are right, and it's their job to tell us that, in no uncertain terms. Everything else is secondary.
They also assume that everyone else is just like them, which is why they think it's enough to prove "liberal bias" in the media just to point out that working journalists (thought not their bosses!) are predominantly Democrats, or that they say things off the air, or in opinion venues, that show a liberal attitude toward things.
What they just can't get through their heads is that journalism has standards, and that if you adhere to those standards, then there are constraints on bias. Ideally, truth is one of those constraints. When folks lie, you don't give them a free pass. That's part of the journalists' job. Not the Versailles "journalists" of course. But the real ones.
And that's because journalism is fundamentally a liberal enterprise--in the 18th Century/Enlightenment/free speech/consent of the governed sense of the term. It is liberalism in this broad historical sense that has become the core defining public value structure of the West. It has roots in ancient Greece and Rome, as well as the Bible, but it is also something historically unique, which at the same time has enormous universal appeal, precisely because it allows for a wide range of latitude at the personal level, which makes it compatible with diverse cultural traditions as they transition into modern industrial and post-modern post-industrial stages of development.
This is what fundamentalists of all stripes--from Bushies to bin Laden wannabes--absolutely cannot stand: a universalist outlook that transcends and relativizes their own. It's not enough that it lets them be, because they demand that others must conform to their vision--or else suffer the consequences. "Live and let live" is anathema to them.
This is why media issues cut to the very core--not just because media controls how we see the world day-to-day, but because they also reflect fundamental assumptions about the very core of who and what we are, both as individuals and as a culture.
-
WT: we're all collectivists
So please, consider the intent behind what may be properly referred to as social engineering, and avoid the knee-jerk libertarian aversion to collective actions which -- despite their potential for abuse -- are sometimes the only defense an individual has against the predations of those who have more power.
William T--
The trouble with libertarians is that they claim to an aversion to collective actions, but would not actual want to live in a state that is not organized in a collectivist fashion. You can't get capitalism without collectivism, and they really luvs their capitalisms.
The only truly libertarian societies are usufruct societies, where there is no collective determining and enforcing property ownership rules. Once you introduce real property, you've introduced a very large and intrusive government.
-
Another problem with the "free market":
Environmental damage. We've introduced numerous invasive species (such as the fire ant) that are wreaking havoc with our ecosystem. Corporate agriculture also tends toward crop monocultures, which result in bolstering diseases and harmful insects; indeed, the boll weevil epidemic of the 1910s caused one of the largest demographic changes in American history, bringing Blacks from the rural South to the urban North. Agribusiness corporations also use extremely destructive practices in order to grow their crops and end up forcing these practices on others, not to mention their rapacious "intellectual property" abuses in GMO crops. Imagine, being sued for having a hybrid strain growing because nature takes it course!
-
"Adversarial" to the exclusion of all else is partisanship."
Sounds like good ole GWB to me... given his complete refusal to consider the opinion of the 70%-plus of the American public who disagree with his war-- whether with its origins or its execution-- and who wish him to cease and desist.
paraphrasing...
You're either with us (read "me) or with the terrorists.
I'll stand my ground on the war even if only Laura and Barney are on my side. (Has anyone asked either Laura or Barney where they stand?)
and so forth...