Letters to the Editor
-
@ Anoymous 12:40 pm who asks: "is steinham for real?"
And yet who says she didn't read the original article.
It would help to actually do so. Then you would see the difference between the Steinem (note correct spelling) article and how Kamiya misrepresented the article.
-
*Sigh*
The best nominee is Dennis J Kucinich. And it would be difficult to argue with that. Fortunately, the MSM has buried him and so people don't have to argue with it. And Salon doesn't take him seriously, either. Can someone tell me why that is? He is almost in total agreement with all tenets of main-stream liberalism, he has no corporate cronies and has been totally consistent, always, from his stance on Iraq, to regulating what gets imported from China. So why does Salon, a supposedly liberal magazine, refuse to mention anything more important than UFOs about him? Is that really necessary? Why did he get dismissed without argument? I know he has almost no chance of winning, but his campaign is partly financed on taxpayer money, so it is the duty of a free press to seriously discuss his positions. And talk about his campaign. So why, Salon, WHY? Maybe if someone could tell me that, I could find some peace. I would even stop writing annoying letters. It would be nice.
In case anyone needs it, hHere's my email:
europroske@gmail.com
-
Thanks, Gary
It's about time that somebody called out Gloria Steinem's op-ed for the bs it was, and specifically for pulling out the "who is more victimized" meme. Unfortunately, it seems to have gone on to frame the larger debate.
For anyone who claims to be supportive of human rights, equal rights, whether based on race, gender, religion, sexuality, etc., it is just absurd to pit one category against another. It is just absurd. But this is what GS was arguing... that sexism is somehow worse than racism. Both are unacceptable, so why do we have to choose?
Sadder still is that, once that frame was put out there, the two campaigns, Clinton vs. Obama, or at least their various supporters, fell into it hook line and sinker. And of course the MSM, ever eager for an irrational cat fight, gave it more press than it ever deserved.
Sigh.
-
"Veil of Secrecy"?
"Now, to return to my original points, why is there such a veil of secrecy surrounding the charming Senator Obama and, to keep ON TOPIC which revolves around race and gender, why is hs mother not being acknowledged? I believe that Barack Obama's mother had a daughter with Mr, Soetero. That brings in the gender issue again so why is his sister not being brought forward?
Such drama. How can there be a veil of secrecy when a random person like you can so easily find out these "secrets"? I'm meh on Obama but he doesn't need to acknowlege his mother who I believe is deceased in a way that satisfies YOU. Also, I'm not sure on what you mean by bring forward but his sister has been campaiging for, and sometimes with him since May of this year. I know it's a secret but you might be able to find the info in about.....5 seconds.
-
Idiots...
CFG 1
Ssssh.
CFG 2
Ssssh.
--[The two groups spot each other and relax. After a few confused moments,
the leader declares his group in a thick Welsh accent.]
DEADLY DIRK OF THE CFG
Campaign for a Free Galilee.
FRANCIS
Oh. Uh. People's Front of Judea. Officials.
DEADLY DIRK
Oh.
FRANCIS
What's your group doing here?
DEADLY DIRK
We're going to kidnap Pilate's wife, take her back, issue demands.
FRANCIS
So are we.
DEADLY DIRK
What?
FRANCIS
That's our plan!
DEADLY DIRK
We were here first.
FRANCIS
What do you mean?!
DEADLY DIRK
We thought of it first.
PFJ MAN
Oh yeah?
DEADLY DIRK
Yes. A couple of years ago.
PFJ
Oh, yeah. Heh heh.
DEADLY DIRK
We did!
FRANCIS
Okay, come on, come on. You got all your demands worked out?
DEADLY DIRK
'Course we have.
FRANCIS
What are they?
DEADLY DIRK
Well, I'm not telling you.
FRANCIS
Oh, come on. Pull the other one!
VARIOUS
Shh!
DEADLY DIRK
That's not the point. We thought of it before you.
WARRIS
Did not.
DEADLY DIRK
We did.
FRANCIS
You didn't.
CFG
We bloody did!
VARIOUS
Sssssssh. Sssssssssssssh.
DEADLY DIRK
You bastards, we've been planning this for months.
FRANCIS
Well, tough titty for you, fish face. AAAAGGH!
--[A general fight breaks out between the two groups.]
BRIAN
Brothers, brothers. We should be struggling together!
FRANCIS
We are!
BRIAN
We mustn't fight each other! Surely we should be united against the common
enemy!
ALL
The Judean People's Front !!
BRIAN
No. No. The Romans!
ALL
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yes.
FRANCIS
Yeah. He's right.
SOMEONE
Look out!
NO ONE
Careful...
--[A Roman guard crosses the hall verrrry slowly.]
DEADLY DIRK
Right. Where were we?
FRANCIS
Uh, you were going to punch me.
DEADLY DIRK
Oh yeah.
--[The fight breaks out again. More Roman guards approach to find all
members of both groups except Brian basically killing each other. They walk
up to the surprised Brian, and all goes black...]
Thanks "Life of Brian" for this careful, spot-on analysis of the current situation in the struggle for the Democratic nomination...
-
the man in the middle attack
There's a certain kind of computer hack called "man in the middle." A bad person gets in between two computers, and compromises the communication between the two by impersonating each computer to the other. So, you sign on to a banking site, you think. I pretend to be your bank. You give me your passwords, I even say, here's your money, while I'm sending it to Switzerland.
This is the role our miserable press is playing here, and it even makes smart commentators like Gary think that the press-inspired "man in the middle" attack is in fact what the candidate said. So, Russert on Sunday clips one truncated quote from Bill and one quote from Rep. Clyburn, and makes it appear that Bill has dissed Martin Luther King. This is a dishonest lie, and Russert, and many others were not "reporting," but committing a man in the middle attack. Dishonest witnesses got us George Bush by spreading lies about Al Gore. And when the Man in the Middle becomes the Pack, there is no sense of truth, as we saw in 2000 and 2002-2003. Democrats should not trust any of the usual news sources, because they are goddamned liars. Period. Either they are culprits, like Matthews and Russert, or they are just followers of a meme, brainlessly repeating what "they're saying."
One fact is, it's much more acceptable to say degrading things about women, and Matthews and his cohort have been gunning for Hillary for years. But a truly viable candidate like Obama in a Democratic campaign is, frankly, tricky. If you're his opponent, you have to contrast his approach to x or y to yours, which is, of course, better. (You're running for office, not running for saint -- and by the way, once we get off the identity politics, you may be right and he might be wrong.) But the sensitivities here are enormous, of course. And a dishonest man in the middle, like Russert on Meet the Press on Sunday, can accentuate the strife and make it seem must larger than it really is, because, why? Is he just trying to provoke passions? That's not a reporter's role. Or is he just taking an active part in the campaign, doing anything he can to help McCain, but doing anything he can to hurt a) Hillary, and b) when and if it's time, Obama. In other words, what does Tim get out of this? It certainly isn't journalism, whatever it is he practices.