Letters to the Editor
-
Accepting any view point? (ABAB)
Actually, RWA organizations accept only their view point, right or wrong. Is this better than at least considering more than one side? With the RWA hold on power, both political, and through owning the media, the "liberal" MSM has shifted to searching for balance. And they are damned proud that they are willing to go that far! But no one shares their pride.
-
If today's media had been covering the Third Reich...
...they'd have dismissed Jewish critics of kristalllnacht as shrill and unbalanced.
But here's a little thought exercise.
Just imagine what the media woulda been saying IF:
• Bill Clinton had deliberately instigated a three-trillion dollar war.
• Bill Clinton's administration had had a sub-prime mortgage crisis.
• Bill Clinton had demanded retroactive amnesty for illegal wiretapping.
• gasoline cost four bucks a gallon during the Bill Clinton administration.
etc. etc.
-
liberal elite nonsense
It's a wonder that you could even find enough spare time to write a book, given all the time you spend blogging progressive hatespeech like you do. And you're also a lawyer? That's like four strikes right off the bat. You couldn't possibly have anything Serious to say. You haven't been on TV nearly enough to merit a good review.
And a piece of advice for your next book - don't rely so much on evidence and logic to determine your conclusions. America didn't become the empire it is today because we overthought everything like you do. Americans succeed because of exceeding strength and high volume and good hunches. Follow the path America has laid out and you may, one day, write a book worth reading.
-
the more it changes
This is the inherent tendency in the electronic media, I'm afraid.
I recall a Murrow quote where he said were the Crucifixion to be televised, equal time would have to be given to Judas Iscariot. That one side, when allowed the opportunity, uses it to consistently push the most extreme, truth-challenged version of events should come as no surprise. I think what's needed is what Norman Mailer wanted from his half of the equation: "superior bullshit."
-
balance for thee, but not for me
angry, partisan, overly broad and out of bounds, no different than Limbaugh or Coulter.
Except, of course, it's "partisan" to declare Limbaugh or Coulter "out of bounds." That's for shrill types like Greenwald and Krugman... Limbaugh is merely "opinionated," while Coulter is a "humourist."
I know what you're saying, Glenn, but sometimes it seems to me that only one side gets called for being "off-centre."
-
but he's a uniter
This is why I am incredulous at those who back Obama because they think he will somehow heal the polarization in the country. (It's OK with me if you back Obama for other reasons, though. You're welcome).
The Rush Limbaughs and Michael Savages and Michelle Malkins get their audience by focusing their inchoate rage and resentment. Are they going to suddenly start compromising? Is Ann Coulter's next book going to be titled "You Know, the Liberals Make Some Good Points"? Is Senator Inhofe going to release a list of 400 scientists who do believe in global warming? Are the fundamentalist preachers suddenly going to start giving sermons saying that according to the Bible homosexuality is a sin, but then again so is eating pork?
It's pretty obvious by now that the whole point of what is currently "the right" or "conservatives" can hardly be considered to be small government, or unwillingness to go way out on a limb over untest ideas, or the concept that the government should intrude as little as possible into the citizens' lives, the ideals once considered axiomatic by political conserivatism. Nor can the public figures of the right be seen as embodying conservative moral values in their private lives, with no diminution of their stature as conservative idols.
What characterizes the right wing of today is adherence to infallible authority figures, black and white morality, simple answers, no self-doubt, if you aren't with us you're against us, if somebody says something you don't want to hear, they're absolutely lying, no compromises. If thinking hard about the complex issues in an ever larger and more complex world makes your head hurt, these folks have got the cure. Shades of gray, compromises, laboriously working out policies point by point after listening to all sides, modifying one's own behavior to be considerate of others, those are all hallmarks of the left, and identified as weakness by the folks who are now expected to adopt them. I don't see it happening.
-
cestmoi123
Also, honest feedback, this post comes across as "Publisher's Weekly was unfair to me, waaaah!" It would have been much stronger if you'd left out your review, and talked about the reviews of others, where you have a very fair point.
Why would I refrain from talking about criticisms of my book? I think that PW review of my book -- and I expect there to be others like it -- is a good example of what I'm describing here, and it is what prompted me to write about it. I'm not going to pretend otherwise, and where I think there's a substantive point to be made, I'm going to engage and respond to people who criticize what I write - either here on my blog or in my books.
-
Is Washington Post's Jackson Diehl Simply Making Stuff Up Re Colombia / FARC / Chavez?
(I posted this on an earlier thread. I really think it's worth a good look. Remember, these are explosive allegations that Hugo Chavez of Venezuela has given up to $300 million U.S. to the FARC rebels of Colombia. After the recent Colombian military excursion into Ecuador, the Colombian national police chief presented claims of this from computers captured from the rebel camp.)
In his column today "The FARC's Guardian Angel", Jackson Diehl appears to have taken the bold step of actually adding in words to documents that Colombian police claim were captured from FARC rebels.
Here is what Diehl prints for the Post's readers:
The first e-mail, dated Feb. 8, discusses the money: It says that Chávez, whom they call "angel," "has the first 50 [million] available and has a plan to get us the remaining 200 in the course of the year." Chávez proposed sending the first "packet" of money "through the black market in order to avoid problems." He said more could be arranged by giving the FARC a quota of petroleum to sell abroad or gasoline to retail in Colombia or Venezuela.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/09/AR2008030901429.html?sub=AR
There you go. See? Captured documents prove Hugo Chavez gave the FARC rebels $250 million.
Or do they?
In the original documents, which you can read in the Colombian magazine Semana, there is a section in which it mentions that talks have been going on with Venezuela (which is unsurprising, as Venezuela, Ecuador, France and others have been undergoing hostage-release negotiations), and this is what the transcripts say:
From Semana, section "Negotiations with Venezuela":
Ya tiene disponibles los primeros 50 y tiene un cronograma para completarnos 200 en el transcurso del año.
http://www.semana.com/wf_InfoArticulo.aspx?idArt=109929
In English, "The first 50 are already available, and we have a timetable to complete 200 over the course of a year."
That's it.
That's literally it. Unless Jackson Diehl has secret information he isn't revealing, note what he just did.
In the original, the numbers are completely unclear. They don´t say what they refer to. There is no follow-up discussion (check for yourself) detailing the meaning. We don't even know that they represent different quantities.
But not for Jackson Diehl are we limited by the lack of information.
You see, he inserted that little "[million]" after 50. You see, he knows without supporting evidence that it represents $50 million U.S. dollars.
I don't know that. The documents don't indicate that.
But Jackson Diehl knows. That's why he has the lee-way to insert words into transcripts in order to bolster dramatic allegations against Hugo Chavez.
THIS is serious. THIS is no joke. Diehl needs to explain himself and explain himself quicklike.