Sunday, May 29, 2005
Yes, Virginia...
Valarie Kaur is suprised that Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly have responded with partisan illogic to a play she and her Harvard classmates have put on, "Abu Ghraib".
Poor thing.
It's not about logic, honesty, or truth, Valerie; it's about power. Welcome to America in 2005.
Poor thing.
It's not about logic, honesty, or truth, Valerie; it's about power. Welcome to America in 2005.
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
The Editor is clearly a man - with his demeaning "poor thing" comment. Virginia is questioning the power you insultingly made reference to. Should we not question power MR. Editor? Go back to FOX News and drown yourself in power.
# posted by
:
7:45 PM, May 29, 2005
:
7:45 PM, May 29, 2005
Wow--the irony.
"Poor Thing" is an expression dear to the Editor (and his wife) from an old play, Harvey. A play--get it?
It is always meant in the same non-demeaning way it's used in the original. We recommend it.
Anyway, far be it from us to object to the dueling sensitivities that pass for debate these days--we never could stand the humanities department--but while it's probably time we stopped presuming folks knew Mary Chase's work we'll never stop expecting them not to presume to fire away without an inkling of what they're talking about. Call us romantic, but we have such high hopes for the species--we can't help ourselves.
We're at a loss, however, to respond to a comment that so completely misses the meaning of our post. We therefor simply give you a "D", and recommend remedial reading.
Oh wait--we can try a little of this back at you! How DARE you presume that a woman couldn't have written "Harvey"! Go back to reading "Reader's Digest" and drown yourself in, uh, wicked conservative stuff...or something
Ah--we're no good at that crap.
"Poor Thing" is an expression dear to the Editor (and his wife) from an old play, Harvey. A play--get it?
It is always meant in the same non-demeaning way it's used in the original. We recommend it.
Anyway, far be it from us to object to the dueling sensitivities that pass for debate these days--we never could stand the humanities department--but while it's probably time we stopped presuming folks knew Mary Chase's work we'll never stop expecting them not to presume to fire away without an inkling of what they're talking about. Call us romantic, but we have such high hopes for the species--we can't help ourselves.
We're at a loss, however, to respond to a comment that so completely misses the meaning of our post. We therefor simply give you a "D", and recommend remedial reading.
Oh wait--we can try a little of this back at you! How DARE you presume that a woman couldn't have written "Harvey"! Go back to reading "Reader's Digest" and drown yourself in, uh, wicked conservative stuff...or something
Ah--we're no good at that crap.
Thank you for your comment, "Anonymous". The editor assumed that I was surprised by Rush's response and naive about power. Neither are true.
The editor assumed you were not, and therefor found baffling your decision to feign both surprise and naivetŽ rather than call Limbaugh and O'Reilly what they really are.
You said "they have all missed the point". You said the "tragedy" at Abu Ghraib "is not a partisan issue".
You alluded to abuser and victim as both being "human beings placed in tragic circumstances, often outside their control".
Finally you suggested that "Limbaugh would see that Americans cannot simply shrug off Abu Ghraib" if he "stepped off his conservative platform for a moment". Then you invited him and O'Reilly to see the play, as if...what?
Where, Valerie, do you speak truth to power? Where do you even mention it?
The editor has also had a community safety officer clamp handcuffs down harder on purpose after being asked to get them off the wrist bone. That's because the officer was an a-hole. And the editor wasn't even accused of hating America--he was just a drunk and disorderly musician.
You should see how some community safety officers treat non-white non-college students. That's reality.
What Limbaugh and O'Reilly are is also reality; they're paid, professional liars who use their platform to intimidate anyone who threatens the power of their employers. This time it was YOU they zeroed in on.
So call it what it is.
Post a Comment
You said "they have all missed the point". You said the "tragedy" at Abu Ghraib "is not a partisan issue".
You alluded to abuser and victim as both being "human beings placed in tragic circumstances, often outside their control".
Finally you suggested that "Limbaugh would see that Americans cannot simply shrug off Abu Ghraib" if he "stepped off his conservative platform for a moment". Then you invited him and O'Reilly to see the play, as if...what?
Where, Valerie, do you speak truth to power? Where do you even mention it?
The editor has also had a community safety officer clamp handcuffs down harder on purpose after being asked to get them off the wrist bone. That's because the officer was an a-hole. And the editor wasn't even accused of hating America--he was just a drunk and disorderly musician.
You should see how some community safety officers treat non-white non-college students. That's reality.
What Limbaugh and O'Reilly are is also reality; they're paid, professional liars who use their platform to intimidate anyone who threatens the power of their employers. This time it was YOU they zeroed in on.
So call it what it is.
Links to this post:
<< Home
