Don’t play dumb, Kyle.

you know perfectly well if Obama’s middle name was Larry, nobody would mention it. It’s a low-class attempt to imply that he’s an enemy, playing on racism and fear.

Let’s try to have one election that’s not about our lower qualities, how about?

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Among the germanic-Americans of previous generations were many, many little boys named Adolf who did not grow up to invade other countries or wield terrible weapons. Nevertheless, it seems, the awful history of a man named Adolf would make you feel justified in mocking anybody with the same name, as does the history of the man named Hussein.

Polite people used to respect the freedom of others to style their own names. First, middle. First, initial. Initial. initial. Initial, middle. First, initial, “nickname.” First alone. Middle alone. ETC. Polite don’t feel driven to impose their view of completeness and accuracy upon the names of others.

Teasing is a noble exercise. A Georgia congressman named Kingsley? says Republicans would stop saying “Hussein” if Democrats would stop getting irritated by it. Meanwhile, it’s too fun to resist. No wonder Jesus has switched over to the party of whores and tax collectors.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Just a bit?

And despite what NJL says, the news is a product. Shouldn’t be, but it is. It’s a commodity bought and sold. And that’s why it’s “incessant, sensational, breathless,” and “ridiculous” – not to mention much of it being inane.

No I’m not cynical. Not a bit. And Murphy was an optimist.

Report comment to moderator

Would that include HSK and his fellow Worldmag writers?

Report comment to moderator

This Writing 101 example shows how the passive voice can produce an assertion which can’t withstand scrutiny when you specify an actor. Some people in the media write about what people say about the media, a few entirely, but many others don’t.

Harrison suggests that because all persons love power, all persons in “the media” love being the sole object of everyone’s attention, but are ashamed to admit it. This is way over the top. Presumably, Harrison thinks The NYTimes wrote about McCain’s relationship with a lobbyist because the reporters and editors love to have people talking about The Times’ affronts.

Harrison reveals that many journalists want to have “some kind of effect on the world.” Further news flash: ineffectual people often display sour grapes and snobbery against those who dare get out of their place. Harrison essentially tells us that many people in the media are too stupid to understand the difference between fame and importance, and would rather attain the former. I didn’t realize his antipathy ran so deep!

Report comment to moderator

Undoubtably just another bit of stinking garbage floating out of the left-wing sewer (note it is originating in the NY Times according to the link I chased). This is the level they play. We should be used to it, by now.

And for those not yet used to it, just wait – in a year or two you will see yet new lows reached in slander and sleaze.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Well, I largely ignore the media, and find the incessant, sensational, breathless reporting of just about anything to fill air time or print space to be a bit ridiculous. Most of what happens in the world, frankly, isn’t that exciting or sensational, and trying to make it seem so is, to me, annoying.

But I have to say, that getting into journalism “to have some kind of effect on the world” seems a completely valid reason.

How many people do you know who do not choose their profession because they hope to have an effect on the world? Whether you choose to be an engineer, a stay-at-home-mom, a lawyer, a preacher or even – gasp – a journalist, other than to earn money, you certainly hope your career will affect the world.

Report comment to moderator