A note from FTLOSBW Editor-At-Large
Due to recent discussion surrounding my postings under the Holy Bejebus section I thought I should weigh in. It should go without saying that I am all for people posting whatever they want to the site. I have tried to encourage, cajole, prompt, and elicit postings from people for the past two years so if you have something to say or something sparks you then by all means please, please, please post it!
With that said, a few items:
1. Holy Bejebus - Never really thought people read that section all that often, I even posted a poll at one time to gauge readership and found out, much to my dismay, that the section was basically ignored. Hell, not everyone votes on the polls for crying out loud. That said, RTS posts stuff to Holy Bejebs and I do regularly as a method of honing my 'one-liners' for my upcoming comedy tour. I welcome anyone to post anything to that section or to take what they read and make an actual post.
2. "Your Gov't At Work" - Not really sure what problem there is with this. The genesis of it stems from libertarian roots that the floor of the f'ing House of Representatives is not a time to recognize a goddam boy scout troop from New Ulm or, more likely, pay back some "political constituents" by recognizing "The On-Premise Sign Industry" or declaring "National Train Day." To think that this doesn't really take up all that much time and/or there are not "political reasons" for this kind of crap is wrong. As a taxpayer I elect these people to execute the people's business, glad-handing and photo-Ops with Arnold Palmer, while totally cool, doesn't seem like the people's business to me.
3. Regarding "The Blumenthal Incident" - I think of myself as rather fair-handed in my disgust for politicians who distort the truth for their benefit. Eight years of the Republicans and Bush and then the last year plus with the Democrats changing nothing about DC have worn me down to think of the majority of these people as grifters in nice suits. I want both parties to be called to the mat. RTS brought up my continued punishment of one "Give 'em Hell Michelle" and repeatedly referring to her as a nutjob (that might have been a time to check facts, right?) Yes, this might be a time to talk about the New York Times and why they chose to 'draw the line here' but that very statement would lead me to wager they lean a bit more left than right, no? You also need to watch this video (click here) where at the 40 second mark he pretty clearly trades on "the days I served in Vietnam." All well and good that he has gone on to "clarify" things saying he served in the reserves during the era, but c'mon, to say it was a "misstatement" is absurd. He knew exactly what he was doing -- he was trying to puff up his credentials to look like he had the resume of a war vet. Call it what you want ("fetishization") but it is kind of a big deal when people risk their lives when serving our country and they get a special spot on the pedestal that you and I don't get to stand on. When someone like Blumenthal tries to stand up on that pedestal then I am going to post something to the Holy Bejebus section that says they are a "piece of shit."
2 Comments:
Jan, thanks for the response. My concern is more in terms of context than content. The Blumenthal thing is fair game, and I don't care that anyone would bring it up. It's not some partisan thing for me. My issue is that putting it in the "Holy Beejebus" section with the title of "What a piece of shit" or whatever, does two things: 1. makes what looks like a conclusory, non-debatable statement, in very strong terms; and 2. makes commenting on the substance behind the link awkward. Where am I supposed to put my thoughts and concerns if they're contrary to the outright condemnation of a person? I can't really retort in a pithy one-liner, so I'd be forced to either squeeze it in under some unrelated thread where no one's likely to see it, or it changes the subject and derails the post someone else wanted to talk about, or I have to start another post entirely, which inherently makes it look like I'm making a mountain out of a molehill. Just as importantly, I don't even know who I'm discussing the issue with, since the links don't note authorship. When I've put up stuff about Bachmann, for instance, I've done so in a separate thread for those reasons.
To each their own, and I guess I should just get along to go along, but I sometimes have a tough time just letting shit go that I don't completely agree with. I know, Lighten up, Francis. I'll do my best.
Since I've made this particular issue one of discussion, I'll note that, interestingly, the NYT is getting a lot of heat right now for only posting a short clip of the speech from two years ago where Blumenthal's famous statement was made. Turns out, earlier in the same speech, he gave his standard "Although I didn't fight in Vietnam per se, I served in the Vietnam era" line. Same speech, same audience. That's not dispositive of anything, of course, but it would at least lead to the impression that if he's trying to deliberately deceive people about his service, he's not very good at it. Wouldn't good journalism dictate that the Times allow its readership to determine the importance of his misstatement/lie/distortion/whatever with the full context in which it was made? This story appears to have been put together with no more journalistic integrity than the bullshit McCain affair with a lobbyist story from during the presidential race. That doesn't mean there may not be something to it, but it makes me question what appears to be an incredibly slanted article pretty seriously. This is part and parcel of another, long discussion about how, to my mind, the single biggest problem with our entire political system is our completely disfunctional media.
May 20, 2010 at 1:56 PM
(too verbose - finishing here)...
As to the issue of misleading statements about military service, I think we all agree that a certain amount of respect is due people who've fought in wars for us, etc. That said, I don't share the same level of reverence that would lead me to dismiss someone who did actually at least serve, but may have exaggerated on one occasion his level of service, as a p.o.s. But that wasn't my point, really - my point was what bearing does military service from decades ago have on whether a person would or would not be a quality public servant? I'd submit it's minimally relevant to, if not negatively correlative with, good leadership skills within the world of public policy. Yet we treat military service as an absolute necessity for any politician over 55. This is insane. My point in the earlier post was that this creates an environment in which politicians feel a need to stretch their own records when they shouldn't have to. That doesn't excuse those who do so; just saying it's a silly element of the system.
Final point: I don't follow your assertion that the Times deciding this was the time to pretty much flat out call a politician a g-d'ed liar would be an indication that they actually lean left somehow. My point was that they've had some pretty solid opportunities to do that over the last decade and yet never took them, engaging instead in he-said, he-said on every easily disprovable distortion coming out of the party in power most of that time, out of fear of being portrayed as overtly Democratic. It's evidence to me that the "liberal media" meme is a boogeyman. If the Times were truly biased in a left-leaning way, they'd have buried this story.
See you Saturday, dude!
May 20, 2010 at 1:56 PM
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home