Letters to the Editor
-
Not this s**t again
I guess Ignatius has forgotton about all the assurances Bush made to the American people about how he hasn't decided whether to invade Iraq, and how he was hoping to avoid war with Iraq through diplomacy, even as Bush was telling the British and Spanish prime ministers that we'd be in Baghdad by the end of March, 2003.
Why would a little thing like that make him skeptical of what a senior Administration official told him?
As for Broder, senile dementia is the only possible explanation for his inistence that the the reason why the public disapproves of Congress is because it passes legislation that the President has said he will veto. If the public wanted Congress to pass bill that Bush liked, they would have returned a Republican majority to both Houses.
The public disapproves of Congress because it is TOO acquiescent to Bush's demands, not because it isn't acquiescent enough.
-
tommydsz gets pwned
Seriously, is anything more humiliating than watching Democrats lose their guts over condemnation of Rush Limbaugh's calling of Iraq vets, who wants the troops out, "phony soldiers"?
Sorry bud, but that's not what happened. Media Matters and Senator Reid are just yanking your chain.
-
-
to clarify something said earlier. my words were "studied for the ph.d." no words regarding completion thereof. no detail.
-
My nickname for David Ignatius
"Ignorantius."
-
@ Jim re Both Sides Do It
The article echoes left-wing thinking about More War, and it's also full of unattributed quotes and information.
Maybe both sides do it?
-- Jim
The difference is that in the Hersh piece, he is quoting people the government doesn't want you to hear. They are sources that need to stay black in order to protect themselves.
Ignatius is quoting people the government DOES want you to hear, i.e., it is propaganda. There is no need for these sources to stay black, except to protect the government.
BIG difference, and one most of the press seems to have forgotten.
-
Alec Elixir
How about Ignoranus, ignorant while being an asshole, much like shooter.
-
our nation's opinion-making elite are the sole remaining group loyal to the GOP's right wing
Remember Ned Beatty's character in Network? I think we're seeing a very similar thing in real life.
-
Didn't learn that in journalism school
On MTP this morning, Russert revealed the problem the opinion-making elite are having--they don't know what to do:
[Russert plays tape:] Mayor RUDY GIULIANI (“Live From City Hall ... With Rudy Giuliani,” WABC Radio, 1994): It really is absolutely astounding that the NRA continues to have influences in areas in which they make no sense at all.
MR. RUSSERT: Far different from his appearance at the NRA last week.
MR. KOPPEL: You think? Just a—you know, the...
MR. RUSSERT: What do we do as journalists to try to cut through this?
-
Lies and false perceptions
frankly, I agree with much of what you say. But I did not say, mean, or imply that lies and truth were equally valid in the public forum, which seems to be what you want me to have said.
Well, okay, but I still cannot get past the fact that Broder's column, ghosted by Cole, is nothing more than a fluff piece — a bit of cheerleading by the head of the NRCC. It might have some value in the "marketplace of ideas" if it told the full story of the NRCC (such as how broke they are), but when Broder acts as a stenographer for Cole by saying
"... There are Democrats sitting in 61 districts that Bush carried; 47 that he carried twice. We are on the offensive in those districts," he said. — Cole apud Broder
without bothering to point out that if they couldn't unseat those Democrats when Bush carried the district then how the hell do they expect to do it without Bush running? No wonder Boehner is not happy about Cole.
I may disagree with you if you are equating false statements with intentional lies. False statements can also be the result of faulty assessments, or wishful thinking, or other causes. Many statements in science have been false. But very very few of them were false because those making the statements were lying.
Well, yes, it turns out that the earth isn't flat nor is it the center of the universe. And phlogiston isn't released when objects burn and everything is not made up of earth, air, fire, and water. But these were all theories based on observations and a theory is merely an explanation put forward to account for observations. As observations get better the theories improve. That's the way that science works.
Strictly speaking, lying involves knowing or believing that the statement one is making is false. It is difficult to prove because it involves specific intent. But there is also something known as "reckless disregard" which extends to the reckless disregard for whether what one is saying is true or not. If one does not know that something is true but claims that he knows that it is and it turns out to be false there is, if not lying, at the least reckless disregard for the truth.
Now when one is faced with a seemingly hopeless situation (e.g., down 47-0 at halftime) there is nothing wrong with cheerleading (e.g., telling the team that they can score 47 points in a half because the other guys did it) and that is what Cole is doing. But journalists aren't supposed to be cheerleaders (although there is more latitude in opinion pieces) and turning one's column over for a cheerleading session by one political party without any balancing of the cheery sentiments expressed with hard facts doesn't really fall into the category of journalism. One can't fault Cole for cheerleading, because, as he points out, that is his job; but one can fault Broder for turning his column over for a cheerleading session because that's not his job.
re: rate of political change, all I have said, today and previously, is that change is not by definition slow or fast--in politics or any other realm. I agree with you that political/governmental change should have occurred--for all the reasons you cite and more.
And it has been pointed out by Glenn and others that the US political system is designed to be slow and deliberate, unlike a parliamentary system where governments can change weekly. Kovie's analogy of turning a large ship moving at high speed is a good one. The ship covers a good deal of distance before it even begins to respond to the rudder. Other political systems are more flexible (and some are downright flaccid). But if one wants to operate within the framework of the US Constitution, it is slow and ponderous.