Letters to the Editor
-
@grayarea
Great ideas, but about this: Once you see there is interest, compile a list and post on a library discussion list such as Publib that you have limited copies of the book available for any library interested.
The problem is, my library -- its Board of Directors and too many in management -- would never request the "right" books. Requests would have to come from patrons of the library or residents of the library's district asking for a donation of this or that book to be shipped directly to their library -- in or not in their name.
There are many, many libraries controlled by right-wing religionists and/or conservatives (as that word has come to be defined). I imagine it is worse in the South, but I'm smack in small-town Midwest. In any event, I feel that however such a project were to unfold, it would have to be patron-driven.
-
shooter242
Glenn, you're putting your heart on your sleeve. It's a bad thing to do in public. Obviously the stereotype of "girly man" affects you greatly. Perhaps you should leave it alone. All it does is fuel the stereotype to greater heights.
Yes, that must be why I write about it - not because it is the predominant theme in our political discourse as countless examples demonstrate. They have Ronald Reagan and George Bush prance around in cowboy, ranch and fighter pilot costumes because all of this is just a figment of my hurt feelings. That's also why the whole Bush 41 campaign was designed to get rid of his "wimp" label and put it on Dukakis.
Psychology Professor Stephen Ducat:
Since the U.S. national elections of 1980, right-wing political propagandists have relentlessly, and with great success, linked liberalism to weakness, dependency, and helplessness -- qualities seenby most male-dominated societies as feminine.
Obviously, I only write about this because it "affects me greatly." If you think about it for 10 seconds or so, you might see that the accusation itself is evidence of what I'm describing.
-
Baldie McEagle
The latest orthodontist research studies conclude that Bald Eagles with no teeth have severe mood swings and fly lopsided.
The latest orthopedic studies?
Penguins wobble with bad legs.
The GOP need to visit a Exorcist.
I thought you were a podiatrist?
You need bird feeders to wee in?
What color are your claws today?
You need a manicurist? A limb?
Be careful when stooping a mice.
-
@Bop!
"shooter242? Ride a greyhound from NJ to DC."
Shooter ride the dog?
No way, Hosay.
Shooter is the dog.
All sing now!!!!
"On top of ol Smokey,
where nobody goes,
except for ol Shooter
without any clothes.
Along came the Elephant
with such good luck
Shooter bent over
and they started to........"
How's your leg, my friend?
-
Glenn, that's a catch question to shooter242.
If you think about it for 10 seconds or so,
Its been long established shooter242 doesn't think. There's some debate as to whether or not he's actually capable of it in the first place.
-
I originally left this at the end of a long swampland thread.
And I haven't yet seen the bloggingheads vid (no sound at work), but I thought i'd offer it up as an example of what she's defending against:
An Open Letter to Ana Marie Cox....
AMC,
I appreciate your efforts and your honesty. Now here's my concern. It is well known that a major part of the sales effort behind the Iraq war involved repeatedly using Saddam Hussein and OBL's name (or Al Qaeda) in the same sentence so that the association was burned into the public awareness even though there were no statements you could point to where the connection was directly asserted and therefore could be pointed out as a lie.
You just used the phrase "He is for a muscular use of American power" which is sort of misleading because we all know that "muscular" in that context is a euphemism for "explosive".
So now we have the candidate repeatedly asserting that the Iranians are assisting Al Qaeda in Iraq knowing full well that A: Al Qaeda is just a brand name and the group in Iraq bears little connection to the terrorists who actually attacked us and B: They are NOT being aided by Iran.
Perhaps you can begin to appreciate my concern when the Candidate for CiC is using sloppy language in order to justify as you put it a "muscular" posture. We've already been down this road and the consensus opinion is that it sucks.
My other concern is that for McCain's sloppy language and deliberate conflation of different enemies to succeed, it is necessary that the public continue to be misled. This is where you come in. JK has already gone on record noting that McCain is being dishonest but the coverage surrounding the candidtae continues to be complicit in the effort to mislead.
Did I mention that Scherer just fell for the oldest trick in the book by diseminating a damaging video link accompanied by the public apology for the link.
The public needs to know the truth of what's happening in Iraq and you guys need to stop helping the candidates lie about it.
And I mean that in the nicest way possible.....
-
Jebbie.
Be nice or you will suffer from forgetfulness. There is a professor I know who shines only one shoe. He owns a pale lime green 3-piece suit, but forgets to put on the pants. He's cranky from over fifty years without sex.
Recent sexologist say neocons,
are getting worse and die horny.
Jebbie? No one wants that to be Yoo.
-
Jay Rosen reacted harshly to a recent comment of mine on Digby
regarding the issue of how we should deal with those members of the media (i.e. most of it) who do things like treat McCain with deference and adulation and uncritically keep repeating how strong he is on foreign affairs, pounce on Dems for being weak and soft and bad on national security, and ignore or misrepresent so many of the outrages being committed by the right these days, because, well, they're not such bad people, and they're so much fun to be around. I called for "taking out" some of the more egregious media offenders, like Joe Klein or John King, ridiculing and humiliating them and making examples of them so that the rest of the right-loving media gets the message that we're not going to let them keep getting away with this. Rosen quoted my comment on his blog as an example of how wrong-headed and mean-spirited some of us lefty bloggers are. Because, of course, the right way to deal with liars and suckups is to make nice with them, have polite intellectual debates with them--basically, be like Alan Colmes, every wingnut's favorite liberal, because he's not mean.
Folks like Rosen are part of the problem, because while they might be on the right side, they continue to see this as a dispute between people who simply have different points of view who should debate them politely, rather than a crucial fight between liars, suckups, apologists, idiots, fools, shills and enablers on the one hand, and people who see what's going on in the country right now and are trying to do something about it, which includes exposing the lies and distortions being spread by the right through its media shills and enablers, and that the only way to do this effectively is by smacking these cretins down. There are few people I have less respect or use for than so-called "Dems" and "liberals" who still think that we're all on Firing Line and having nice if spirited intellectual debates. No, we're not. This isn't about ideas. This isn't about opinions. This isn't about theory. This is about taking down the people who are destroying the country, which includes dishonest journalists and pundits who keep enabling the right. And it calls for, among others, some pretty harsh tactics, that, so long as they're legal and ethical, are fully justified, and necessary. I'm not saying that we need to destroy some of these people, just humiliate a few of them sufficiently so that the rest get the message and perhaps draw back from praising McSaint and ignoring torture and illegal surveillance and the disaster that is Iraq.
Anybody disagrees with me, kindly explain why I'm wrong. I'm not saying that this is the ONLY tactic we should employ, just one of them. Nor am I saying that we should make stuff up, of course, or go after less egregious or first time offenders, or dig up personal stuff about them. Of course we shouldn't. Such attacks should be limited to the worst offenders, be entirely fact-based, and restricted to their professional actions. But anyone who thinks that some damn fool who gets invited to hang out with a politician (of either party) and in return gives them favorable coverage doesn't deserve to get called out and slammed down, is reading the wrong blog.
Rosen doesn't get it. Digby, Glenn and the rest of us do. This is war.