Date Posted:12:40:40 09/18/02 Wed Author:bolagard Author Host/IP: h-66-167-61-64.DLLATX37.covad.net / 66.167.61.64 Subject: Re: OK, I don't mean to beat a dead horse either In reply to:
Richard
's message, "OK, I don't mean to beat a dead horse either" on 09:15:06 09/18/02 Wed
Richard,
Thanks for the response. Although it appears that the dead horse in question has received a thorough thrashing, I just can't leave without giving him one last kick. You said: "OK, maybe I did misrepresent the material in the article in question by saying it was "good". My actual quote from the original post was:
It presents one of the best dialogues I've seen regarding the Bush Administration's efforts against Iraq."
No, the actual quote to which I referred was: "A good Op-Ed from the NY Times on te Iraq Situation."
As for Kristof's "noninflammatory manner" with which he represents his anti-Bush rhetoric, I think it makes him more dangerous than Maureen Dowd or Molly Ivins. Ivins and Dowd are blithering idiots; at least they make no attempt to hide it. Kristof, on the other hand, presents basically the same view as Ivins and Dowd....but he does so in such a manner as to trick otherwise reasonable folks into thinking his view deserves to be treated with some semblance of respect. It was his "noninflammatory manner" which caused you to call his monologue "one of the best dialogues I've seen regarding the Bush administration's efforts against Iraq." That is a good example of liberals' arguing in non-quantifiable terms: Kristof made blatantly false statements concerning Kennedy's "passion to avoid war" in an effort to paint President Bush as a warmonger who doesn't care about international law or civilian casualities...and solely based on Kristof's method of writing, you call it "a good op-ed." I'm not trying to insult you; I'm just pointing out how insidious Kristof is. Had the op-ed been written by Molly Ivins or hillary clinton, everyone with a brain who read it would have laughed and said, "What a moron! I'm more convinced than ever that we need to invade Iraq." But, with Kristof's sly, "noninflammatory" approach, even intelligent people like you are saying, "Hhhmmmm, that's a reasonable argument, perhaps Saddam does need to be given more than one decade to decide whether he will keep his promises and comply with international law."
You said: "One of my pet pieves is the blatant spin different media outlets will put on individual stories as well as the overall focus on certain topics."
I share your disdain for the spin put out by media outlets....which is why I responded in the first place. VoyForums is a "media outlet" and you, as a moderator, are the voice of a "media outlet." If you treat falsehoods such as Kristof's piece with respect, you are applying that spin.
It looks like we've pretty much ridden this pony as far as he'll go........maybe we can discuss slavery reparations next, eh?
