How unbelievable is this? Among friends just yesterday, I was laughing at the most ridiculous of all Democrats, Sen. John F. Kerry, the Great Equivocator, and the Boston Globe has a story on him in their September 20 issue.
Anyway, this is my letter in response to the article:
Editor,
Criticizing Sen. John F. Kerry is like shooting fish in a barrel.
For those that missed it, this is a verbatim quote from yesterday's Boston Globe, "Katrina is the background of a new picture we must paint of America. For five years our nation's leaders have painted a picture of America where ignoring the poor has no consequences; no nations are catching up to us; no pensions are destroyed. Every criticism is rendered unpatriotic . . . Well, Katrina did happen, and it washed away that coat of paint and revealed the true canvas of America with all its imperfections (In college speech, Kerry upbraids Bush administration, September 20, A9)." First, there is absolutely no way Mr. Peter Canellos, the Globe writer that authored the story, punctuated this quote properly. Nobody could! Second, Sen. Kerry must be brilliant because with my University of Notre Dame education I have absolutely no clue what he said. I must be dumm.
Next, it is extremely peculiar that on the day that North Korea pledged to abandon its nuclear weapons program, Sen. Kerry chose instead to (try and) use the Katrina disaster for political advantage (N. Korea treaty marks US shift, September 20, A1). Recall, during the 2004 Presidential debates, Sen. Kerry said that North Korea's nuclear weapons aspirations were the greatest threat to the national security of the the United States. The Bush Administration orchestrated progress on the greatest threat to U.S. national security and Sen. Kerry ignores it? Great leadership that!
Fish in a barrel. (End of letter)
How am I not a syndicated columnist?
Anyway, this is my letter in response to the article:
Editor,
Criticizing Sen. John F. Kerry is like shooting fish in a barrel.
For those that missed it, this is a verbatim quote from yesterday's Boston Globe, "Katrina is the background of a new picture we must paint of America. For five years our nation's leaders have painted a picture of America where ignoring the poor has no consequences; no nations are catching up to us; no pensions are destroyed. Every criticism is rendered unpatriotic . . . Well, Katrina did happen, and it washed away that coat of paint and revealed the true canvas of America with all its imperfections (In college speech, Kerry upbraids Bush administration, September 20, A9)." First, there is absolutely no way Mr. Peter Canellos, the Globe writer that authored the story, punctuated this quote properly. Nobody could! Second, Sen. Kerry must be brilliant because with my University of Notre Dame education I have absolutely no clue what he said. I must be dumm.
Next, it is extremely peculiar that on the day that North Korea pledged to abandon its nuclear weapons program, Sen. Kerry chose instead to (try and) use the Katrina disaster for political advantage (N. Korea treaty marks US shift, September 20, A1). Recall, during the 2004 Presidential debates, Sen. Kerry said that North Korea's nuclear weapons aspirations were the greatest threat to the national security of the the United States. The Bush Administration orchestrated progress on the greatest threat to U.S. national security and Sen. Kerry ignores it? Great leadership that!
Fish in a barrel. (End of letter)
How am I not a syndicated columnist?
posted by Zack at 3:24 PM
1 Comments:
Zacklyright is up to it again, being zackly wrong that is, Zackly's ill deserved ego is frightening at how it suppresses any intellectual curiosity and compels him to being a relentless "ditto head;" lets look at the:
Liberal media?
Did you follow the coverage of the anti-war protests this weekend? If you did you had to work at it since it was pretty much non-existent.
The largest anti-war protest in the US since 1968 - that is nearly 40 years - took place this past Saturday. Where was the coverage in the so-called "liberal" mainstream media?" In the Boston Sunday Globe, for instance, there was a story on page A6 with a single impersonal photo of the crowd that was estimated to be somewhere between 100,000 and 250,000. The entire article occupied 83.7 square inches in the paper. On Sunday there was a small gathering of 400 pro-war protesters who were protesting the anti-war protest of the previous day. There are small protests everyday in Washington, so a small gathering of 400 pro-war guys is a "dog bites man story" right? No. In the Monday Boston Globe, on page A2, there was a large story on the pro-war protest that occupied 118.75 square inches, with two photos. One photo was of a mother crying and the other of angry resolute white men standing in front of a huge American flag (this photo was 62 square inches - nearly half the page). So 100,000-250,000 people against "the war" versus 400 people for the war and our "liberal" Boston Globe provides significantly more coverage of the 400 (40% larger, page A2 versus page A6 and two powerful photos versus one impersonal photo)? What gives?
I will tell you what gives. The major media outlets are part of the current power structure along with the Republican and Democratic parties and they wish to maintain the status quo. Thus, they do not wish to relinquish control to the public, and consequently they are complicit in propagating the belief that we are to support our government's right to make decisions that are in direct opposition to the opinion and interests of the people. On a related note you will recall the wild reporting after the Katrina hurricane of rampant looting, rapes and murders - this was front-page stuff. They said it was "anarchy" with the not so subtle emphasis being on the need for authority to control the people from themselves. All members of the power structure propagated this: the media and members of the local, state and federal governments. Well, interestingly, it is now coming out that these rumors were just that - rumors. There are no substantiated reports of rape in the Superdome, no actual murders, and almost no looting. This information was reported in today's Globe on page A12 (I think) - where few will see it long after we have all been frightened by the "powers-that-be" regarding what we would do to ourselves if not for the police, FBI and military to "maintain" order. Admittedly, total anarchy is not an effective form of social order - but there might be a place for concepts that drive toward less authority and more service from our government. The right wing agenda is just the opposite - increased authority and control along with an elimination of service. It is absurd. (My editorial note: anarchy has been the whipping boy of political ideals - yet most people would agree with its base principals - it is just that it threatens those with power so it has to be vilified).
Post a Comment
<< Home