I read this little blog entry on the National Review website and it got me thinking about why the "right" wing crowd is so obsessed with media coverage and representation. I guess it just occured to me that these people obviously spend a lot of time watching TV! Or something like that. Anyway, here's the letter I wrote, it's got some zingers in it. And yes, I really did send it to the guy. I'm genuinely perplexed.
Dear Mr. Goulding:
Hi. I was just wondering what you have elucidated for me in your blog comment that the unnamed critics in the New York Times are the reporters themselves. Putting aside the possible validity or invalidity of your argument for a moment, I'm genuinely curious as to what this proves. Is it that Mr. DeLay had no critics? Or does it prove that DeLay has been unfairly represented in the nation's leading newspaper? Is the idea that DeLay's downfall is either entirely or largely attributiable to "unfair" media coverage? Do you think that DeLay's policies were beneficial to the country, and if so, his ethical lapses ought to be overlooked?
I ask because the current animosity between the "right" and "left" is payalysing our country. I'm a Jewish, University-educated software engineer -- definitely not a Republican! But I don't like any of the political parties, they all seem more consumed with marketing than with governing our country, as is evidenced by our massive budget imbalances, the botched job in Iraq, the failure to deal effectively with a natural disaster in New Orleans, an economy that only benefits the nose-bleed section of the tax bracket, businesses that are going bankrupt because they can't pay their health insurance premiums for their pensioners (GM), etc. The Republican's failure to deal with their inefficacy and the Democrat's laughable inability to seize the opportunity to govern depresses me.
So I ask you those questions because I get the feeling that many on the right side of the spectrum feel like they have an axe to grind, that somehow they are represented unfavorably to the public. This concern with representation seems to me to be the least of our worries in deeply troubling times. Maybe that's another difference. Maybe you don't think we live in troubling times. Maybe I am just worried over what you think is a mole hill. Help me understand why this sort of thing is important to you. I want more than anything for their to be dialog between people who don't agree so we can coerce our representatives to go back to the job of governing and get off the permanent campaign trail.
Dear Mr. Goulding:
Hi. I was just wondering what you have elucidated for me in your blog comment that the unnamed critics in the New York Times are the reporters themselves. Putting aside the possible validity or invalidity of your argument for a moment, I'm genuinely curious as to what this proves. Is it that Mr. DeLay had no critics? Or does it prove that DeLay has been unfairly represented in the nation's leading newspaper? Is the idea that DeLay's downfall is either entirely or largely attributiable to "unfair" media coverage? Do you think that DeLay's policies were beneficial to the country, and if so, his ethical lapses ought to be overlooked?
I ask because the current animosity between the "right" and "left" is payalysing our country. I'm a Jewish, University-educated software engineer -- definitely not a Republican! But I don't like any of the political parties, they all seem more consumed with marketing than with governing our country, as is evidenced by our massive budget imbalances, the botched job in Iraq, the failure to deal effectively with a natural disaster in New Orleans, an economy that only benefits the nose-bleed section of the tax bracket, businesses that are going bankrupt because they can't pay their health insurance premiums for their pensioners (GM), etc. The Republican's failure to deal with their inefficacy and the Democrat's laughable inability to seize the opportunity to govern depresses me.
So I ask you those questions because I get the feeling that many on the right side of the spectrum feel like they have an axe to grind, that somehow they are represented unfavorably to the public. This concern with representation seems to me to be the least of our worries in deeply troubling times. Maybe that's another difference. Maybe you don't think we live in troubling times. Maybe I am just worried over what you think is a mole hill. Help me understand why this sort of thing is important to you. I want more than anything for their to be dialog between people who don't agree so we can coerce our representatives to go back to the job of governing and get off the permanent campaign trail.
No comments:
Post a Comment