Letters to the Editor
-
it's the controlled press, stupid
Of course "Beltway Pundits" and most newspaper columnists claim they represent mainstream, or majority, American views. That is what a "controlled press" means. That is what "conspiracy theorists" have been trying to get across to those in deep denial. Deep denial that most of our media was hijacked some time ago by a handful of owners who decide what "America" thinks. That is why I, and an increasing number of Americans, no longer bother much with newspapers or "Beltway pundits." Who cares what these shrills say. They are so freakin' predictable and arrogant I may as well go find a "conspiracy" that makes infinitely more sense.
-
Pundits Aren't Experts
The problem with Brooks and most of the other talking heads based in Washington follows from the confusion of readers [and other talking heads] in equating "pundit" with "expert." Although Brooks' columns appear in the Opinion section along with other talking heads spouting drivel from the left and right, too often we forget that opinions are like an anal tract and everyone has one.
Part of that comes from so-called experts who use their knowledge or experience to provide "analysis" for the media based on selected bits of information [note the root in the first half of analysis]. When high-powered [i.e. well known or notorious] legal experts go on the tube and websites to parse the latest O.J. scandal, or former military officers "tell us what it means" following the latest sectarian battle in Iraq, we grow accustomed to seeing opinion as somehow factual. That this attitude spills over into politics should surprise no one.
From that observation, it's but a short step to the largest part of the problem - Americans have cheerfully handed over the necessity for thinking about policy and issues to whoever among the talking heads will pre-digest topics and spit out talking points in terms they can accept. Want red-meat militarism? Go with Bill O'Reilly and Fox. Looking for something a bit more sophisticated? Try Tommy Friedman or David Brooks. Need an elegant approach? Then George Will or Paul Krugman is the way to go.
Pundits aren't experts and never will be, unless we give them that status by default.
-
Thank you, Glenn
Thank you so much for exposing David Brooks, the consumate beltway pinhead, for what he is. Brooks is so full of it, so flabbergasting, so wrong, that one hardly knows where to begin in deconstructing his asinine BS.
But you, Glenn, you surgically dissect his nonsense and make clear the sweepingly pompous self-serving non-facts behind Brooks's line of bull. You make it seem almost effortless. Thank you. It's almost worth reading Brooks just to see what you'll have to say about it. Almost.
You deserve a medal or something for the service you provide. You certainly have my appreciation.
-
very interesting, ondelette...
I didn't know about Dali's car, but it figures. [What did he use to mow it?]
As for producing energy, I was actually imagining the grass/turf/meadow as something that would serve only to ameliorate the car's pollution, but if I read you correctly, it wouldn't be impossible to use it to generate power, too.
Almost makes me wish I was an engineer... or better yet, an inventor.
-
Cowardice at the NYT
The NYT hired David Brooks as a "liberal friendly" conservative in order to "balance" its liberal (Krugman, Herbert) and pseudo-liberal columnists (Dowd). As other Greenwald and other writers have shown, Brooks is a social conservative warmonger. He claims expertise as a political analyst and (of all things) a sociologist. He is in fact a hateful fraud who makes up evidence to support his claims. Bobos in Paradise, an exercise in bogus sociology if ever there was one, should have been a tipoff. Instead, centrists and the cowards who run the NYT have embraced him, perhaps only because he seems mild mannered compared to his blood thirsty fire breathing confreres (Kristol et al.).
-
Bebop-a-loo-la
Betty never got me. Charlie tried, never could. Ever stir shit and kerosene together on fire? Smoke made me "di cau dau" for life. Me angry? Nah. Too late for that. Got both ball, thank you. Lepers would be jealous of the G.I. issue stuff. Pink panties or boxers? At my age? Depends. Oh man! Tiger Balm time. And Bob Ross is comin' on.
Happy Trees, Bebopper. Happy Trees.
-
Hardly new tactics
Let's give rhetorical-historical credit where it's due. Surely the great virtue of the "silent majority" for Nixon, Agnew, Safire et al. was not such much its majority (to be tested only at intervals) but its silence (which permitted projection of White House attitudes full-time).
For that matter, the Brooksian distinction between the convictions of the chattering classes (aka my opponents) and those of Real Americans (presumably too busy doing Real American Stuff to bother with your whiny opinion polls) can probably be traced back to Whigs and Federalists, if not before.
-
@Kitt
Hey Kitt, just got a chance to read your last word flame attack on me from the other day. Nice attitude. Wow, are you angry. You tell me to get over myself? You should switch to decaf. Or try to be a bit more gracious?
I've been reading GG for a while now and actually enjoy his writing and agree with most of it. I'm not sure what your 800+ posts qualifies you for here or in life? Not much I imagine, except to be nasty? Try exercise, a vegan diet and meditation. It might help.
Best Regards Al2323
Below is what you wrote.
How long have you been attending to this board? A day or three? We regulars, and various other drop ins and whatnot posters, have ripped so many vile anti-semite posters a new one on here that it would make your head spin, that is if you'd get it out of your ass long enough for it be able to spin.
Why don't you just knock it off with the hero play. You're no f'ing hero coming around here accusing everyone of not giving a shit about anti-semites. Get over yourself.
Permalink Monday, September 24, 2007 03:08 PM
#
a123 up in flames
[Read the article: Columbia to be punished for hosting the new
a123,
You might note that now there have been at least three, maybe four posts that either bring up genocide of Jews or accuse the bulk of the board members here of being gleeful if Jews are tromped upon. The anon person, who frequently says that kind of garbage, and then of course the ever repulsive Realname, aka, ~~~~ who hasn't posted a rational post on here, ever.
So if we, all of us, chose to be great big chest puffing heroes, like you think you are, we could have turned this thread into a 50 pager, stating the obvious, over and over again, arguing with simps and fools. Wouldn't that have been just so much productive fun?
H