Morton Mintz: It’s Ridiculous Letter Time at Newsweek
Posted at 8:24 pm, February 16th, 2010
“The president is a socialist ideologue trying to change America into something it will never be: a socialist state,” William Parker, of Selma, Cal., wrote in a letter published on the Feb. 15 Newsweek’s “Feedback” page. Let’s take a quick look at the validity of the accusation and then at a broader question: Why publish such letters?
Here’s a Merriam-Webster definition of socialism:
“1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”
What, specifically, are the “collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods” that President Obama has allegedly advocated?
Parker’s letter is nothing but name-calling, just as would be a letter saying no more than that George W. Bush was our worst president.
Why do such letters deserve publication? I’m not at all sure they do.
February 18th, 2010 at 4:32 pm |
I asked this same question of the Ombudsperson at my local newspaper. Not all letters to the editor are published, why should all entries to a blog be printed (online or in the paper)? He didn’t really have an answer. I have another question, though, letters to the editor of newspapers or newsmagazines often publish one letter in favor of a story and one opposed. If the publication receives 75% of letters on one side and 25% on the other, isn’t it kind of deceptive to portray the discussion as evenly divided?
February 20th, 2010 at 11:09 am |
my local newspaper has a stable of unstable neo conservative, mavericky, half truth patriots who’s tantrums are published regularly.
my conclusions are 1.) that they are red flags, and the paper wants to make sure there is a pulse in the readership, and that 2.) i need to make a mini career out of rebutting this blather.
February 25th, 2010 at 5:33 pm |
Maybe you have never heard of Government Motors? Would you like more evidence? Or is that sufficent?
February 27th, 2010 at 12:03 pm |
Yaknow, 40% of the voting public are incapable of logical, critical judgment. They hear something, or view something that they are pleased with, and give no further question of the matter. With40% in your pocket, all you need to do is twist 11% of the populus and you got it Home Free.
Look at the details of the 911 tragedy. With so many government boondoggles and corrupt government and banking associations in leadup, and coverup, the multitude swallow whole what the 911 Commission deamed as cause.
Look at UBS, Goldman, AIG, Saudis as well as Bush associations and see who benefited from the WTC tragedy.
figure out who
February 27th, 2010 at 6:51 pm |
RobRoy, just write “Bush did it.” Anything else you write is grossly redundant. Just to be clear, you believe GWB killed all those people on 9-11. That’s what you are saying, right?
I loathe your new messiah, but I certainly wouldn’t accuse Obama of complicity in the death of fellow Americans. Well, except for our men and women that he promised to bring home from Bush’s terrible wars. I would say he is complicit in those deaths. Still fighting illegal wars. Nice.
By the way, Obama just got re-authorization for the Patriot Act with overwhelming Democrat support. When Bush wanted it, he was a criminal to all you lefties. Now that Obama wants it, it’s just dandy. Hypocrites.