Letters to the Editor
-
@ Sapheriel
I see your point and concede it, but in Boylan's case it's not the syntax being correct or incorrect that is noteworthy, but that it is CONSISTENTLY incorrect.
Would a faker make the SAME error so often? Something to think about, I am just guessing.
-
Boylan is a liar and a hack
It is obvious that Boylan sent the first e-mail. The tone of all his e-mails is the same.
Clearly, Glenn rattled him when he highlighted that the army is collaborating with the most vicious -- Malkin -- right-wing bloggers.
As for his unsolicitated e-mail to Glenn, it is risible and petty. Boylan is clearly not too bright.
-
And in my opinionation...
Glenn (and other letter writers here) have already done a great job refuting this douchebags "Oh yeah, well YOU'RE a doodie-head!" childish insults and rants. And one letter-writer was correct to say that this little goldmine did hit all of the tactics of the right-wing nutbag argument playbook. However it did touch on one point that I think showcases why our political and jounalistic institutions are in the gutter. BOYlan dismisses Glenn as merely "stating his opinion." This is something I've noticed on political news shows a lot. There are no "facts." Everything nowadays is all ASSumed to be mere opinion. This is what tricks many journalistic outlets to feel that they have to have both "sides" of a story to be "fair and balanced" without making a clear distinction to what the facts are. Conservative blogs and Fox News are masters at this. Don't you remember their slogan, "We report, you decide." In other words YOU decide what's "real" and "truthful" based on what you believe (with our "spin" pointing you in the right direction.) This is all based on the premise that news is all subjective and objective, agreed-upon facts doesn't exist.
These issues are nothing more then a "he said, she said" to neocons and their followers and sycophants. Getting back to the e-mail, I suspect this is why many of these idiots who criticize Glenn almost NEVER actually respond to any evidence he presentes to support his point. Because in addition to Iraq, BOYlan is also conduction the War on Facts (TM).
-
@ LWM, re Farrell
In a word: unreadable. Sounds a bit like Pound might have sounded if he'd had access to a captive audience and an armful of crystal meth.
-
@William Timberman
Ten points for picking on Ezra Pound! That's excellent; it doesn't happen nearly often enough.
I don't suppose you ever read the Elmore Leonard novel where the Italian/American bookmaker is obsessed with Ezra Pound? I can't remember which one that was...
-
IP Address
I suspect others have already said this but I haven't time to go through responses to find out - but according to the ARIN WHOIS database, IP address 10.70.20.11 is assigned to
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
with the note that the block 10.0.0.0 to 10.255.255.255 is "reserved for special purposes."
- LarryE
-
@ Jordan Orlando
No, I didn't read that particular Leonard book, or if I did, I don't remember it. I say bad stuff about Pound often enough, so what follows is -- so to speak -- giving the devil his due.
When the facsimile manuscript of The Wasteland with Pound's annotations, corrections, excisions, etc. was first published -- in 1971, was it? -- it blew my mind. If you get a chance, look at the section which became:
When Lil's husband got demobbed, I said ---
I didn't mince my words, I said to her myself
HURRY UP PLEASE ITS TIMEPound really was il miglior fabbro, if not the better poet in the broader sense.
The fact that he was also insufferable doesn't lessen my admiration for his gift, which was as rare as Mozart's.
-
@William Timberman
Of course these are ephemeral aesthetic questions, no accounting for personal taste etc. but I've always thought that Pound's poetry was leaden and awful compared to Eliot's, whose amazing talent was (nevertheless) occasionally 100% dependent on Pound's insights.
Being a great "accessory to the artist" (like Maxwell Perkins) does not an artist make. Great critics and editors sometimes yearn to be great artists themselves, but wishing don't make it so. (Or, like Clint Eastwood said, "A man's got to know his limitations.")
But, like I said, these are aesthetic issues where debate is hard to do. I have friends who really like Pound's work in toto and I can respect that (especially since they know more than I do about Pound's work).
I remembered the Elmore Leonard: it's Pronto. Various characters find various amusing ways to convey the fact that none of them can make heads or tails of any of Pound's writing.
-
@ Jordan Orlando
What you say accords pretty well with my own assessment, except for the leaden part. Pound had the most remarkable ear. Eliot understood its value, and made even more remarkable use of it when given the chance. What Pound lacked, in my estimation, was what Eliot had in spades: an imagination as broad and deep as it was focused. And I don't believe that it was Pound's crackpot ideologies which were his limitation, Eliot's headpiece was almost as filled with straw as Pound's was; he just didn't let it get in the way.
-
@William Timberman
Yeah, sounds like we're pretty much in agreement. Gordon Lish had a great ear, too, but it was most evident in the way that Raymond Carver's stuff sounds.
I wonder if the gang over at Red State devolves into discussing 20th century poetry? :)
-
Not hardly
I wonder if the gang over at Red State devolves into discussing 20th century poetry? :) -- Jordan Orlando
Nah, they have other fish to fry. Ours.
-
It reads like Petraeus has a two bit right wing blogger as a spokesman.
His initial mail was largely meaningless and his subsequent replies were just as substance-free. That works in a world where no one can ask follow up questions (like Bush press conferences) but in an open forum, their talking points can be dismantled almost immediately. You'd think Boylan would understand that as a 'Spokesman'.
Boylan doesn't inspire confidence and he approaches his position as gate-keeper with Dogbert-like enthusiasm.
If anyone had doubts that the military is just as plagued with petty bureaucrats as other government bureacracies, I'd say this e-mail exchange demonstrates that it's at least just as bad (Congrats, Boylan! Mission Accomplished!).
I wonder when conservatives will realize that the military is just as human as every other gov't bureaucracy - but much more secretive and much more willing to waste our tax dollars.