Letters to the Editor
-
aha
i have discovered at least one of the secrets of hannah arendt's art - she is definitely a fan of g.k. chesterton. she mentions him twice in twenty pages. she certainly doesn't mention any other mere mortals.
-
proxywars
For once, I think GG should lower his dudgeon and think twice about what Ms. Parker means.
The Republican genius has always been for coded racism, which pushes the buttons of the intended audience, but gives them plausible deniability about intent. If they have suddenly switched to open, fully articulated racism, it represents a dramatic development for the party, and probably further evidence of its disintegration.
That's precisely why I think it's worth calling attention to this.
-
Webb On The Tube
Jim Webb is on Meet The Press today.
-
I'm throwing my hat in the ring...
Since being African-American allows me to trace my American heritage to the 1600's, and my Indian Grandfather going back even further (not to mention whatever European slave-holder it was who introduced himself to my bloodline), I hereby announce my bid for the Presidency. It's not too late, and I have as much of a chance as Senator Clinton.
Jokes aside, it is always refreshing to hear what "real" American's are thinking. Frightening.
-
Did Saunders really say this?
Does anyone know whether:
+ David "Mudcat" Saunders exists?
+ if he exists, did he work for Edwards in the position Parker claims he had?
+ if he exists and he once had the role Parker claims, what were the circumstances of his departure from Edwards's employ? Did he leave because Edwards is neither a senator nor candidate? Or was he asked to go because he had amazingly tone-deaf political ideas like having two straight men kiss each other in public?
+ if he exists, did he say what she says he said?
+ if he said it, did he say it in a way that was meant to be taken literally? Metaphorically? Facitiously?
I ask because I find the "advice" very odd. Doesn't it seem improbable that even an adviser for gay issues would suggest this?
There are really two questions of editorial judgment here. One is the judgment of the Post in publishing Parker's work at all & that seems to be what most letter writers (& Greenwald) are reacting to.
But the second question relates to the structure or details of the article. To the extent that there are statements in it that are verifiable, have those statements been verified? The article has 16 paragraphs -- 3 of them -- nearly the first fifth of the article -- relate to an event that never occurred & that probably was never seriously contemplated by either of the two men about whom the article was written. In fact, we have no evidence whatsoever, from the article itself, that the more prominent of the men, Obama, even knew about the alleged idea at all. In fact, the men didn't come close to kissing (per the 4th paragraph, the men didn't even touch when they hugged). I suspect that if you surveyed readers of this article, some percentage would come away from this article thinking Obama & Edwards did kiss or were very likely to. Do the editors of the Washington Post think that editing an article so that it misinforms in this way is a defensible journalistic practice? How do they justify taking up 1/4 of an article (the three paragraphs talking about the kiss that never was, plus one acknowledging it didn't occur) about ideas in no way attributable to the ostensible focus of the article (Obama)?
Here is how far Parker is taking guilt by association: Readers should think Obama wants to kiss men because a man (Edwards) who endorsed Obama once had a man work for him who allegedly came up with a verifiably ignored suggestion that Edwards kiss Obama. It says something about the right wing idea of accountability that Obama should be held responsible for an idea that was not his nor that of his own advisers, & that neither he nor Edwards acted upon. But when a conservative actually does something, he's not supposed to be held accountable for his actions.
-
Sickening
This piece wants me want to vomit. It reminds me of my childhood. My parents came from Italy. I grew up in a predominantly Irish/French neighborhood outside of Boston. For some reason I never understood, I was called a foreigner, and a wop. After reading Greenwald's piece, it appears nothing has changed in 60 years. Yes, we have had white presidents, guys with names like Bush, Ford, Carter, Nixon, Roosevelt and Reagan. All clean sounding white names, no trace of ethnicity. Where did all this purity get us? Today I live in Silicon Valley, where 80% of my neighbors are from India. They are Hindus. It appears (from Greenwald's sources) none of them will ever have the opportunity to be president, even though these Hindus run the most successful companies in America.
If we prefer to elect white men with white names,the United States doesn't have a bright future. As a proud American, I want our president to be the best qualified, the brightest, the most intuitive; he needs to put the America people first because they elected him to be their president. It's that simple.
-
False equivalnce, bucky1 --
". . . . we are in for a very nasty election on both sides because both sides are fighting to divvy up the last few goodies in America."
On the Republcan side, we have overt racism and sexism from and in behalf of an over-the-hill pseudo-WASP. On the Democratic side we have two candidates, one white, and one black. One a woman, the other a man.
The latter is obviously the tide against which you contend by pretending the two are equal, and equally bad.
John Conyers, Democrat and African-American, is about "kicking Rove's ass," and I'm all for that happening: any weeny chickenhawk pig such as Rove who'll wholly ignore the whole of law in order to corruptly and illegally use the institutions of out gov't solely for political advantage needs at very minimum to have his ass kicked.
It is going to be an interesting election as the Democrats in Congress continue to escalate their flaying of the Bushit criminal enterprise, and laying out the evidence obtained thereby for all the world to see.
If early indications are as they seem, McCain is going to be on the defensive the entire time by the demand that he defend or repudiate Bushit's criminal, anti-American agenda. Either way, McCain loses.
Meanwhile, unprincipled milquetoasts such as you will be doing all they can to obfuscate and smokescreen with their pointless and unpersuasive anti-gum'mint gibberish.