Not by design, ash has written a series of pieces (two letters, one op-ed, and one in between, since what difference does the word count make?) guaranteed not to be published by her local paper. Why? Each contains a “poison pill,” or section that Mike (the Mike of “Mike and Me”) would find personally offensive, which is to say she criticized his editorial skills. She confesses it was impossible to resist doing so considering the nature and extent of the lapses in judgment or attention to detail he committed.
Before proceeding to the first instance, ash notes that in conjunction with, though not connected to, the exclusionary content, of these entries, she decided to disband the practice of labeling them “not for publication” in order to create the tactic of arbitrariness. That is, she deliberately made her intentions unclear for the sake of changing the dynamics.
In the following case, ash took syndicated columnist and WWII internment enthusiast Michelle Malkin’s headline “Trip to Iraq results in unexpected hope and resolve” as a launching pad for her remarks, which she wrote without reading one word of Malkin’s article:
"Mmm Mmm Bad"
Raise your hand if you consider columnist Michele Malkin a nice, pleasant, sweet, and polite spokesperson for conservative politics. Now keep it raised if you read her weblog, which comprises any number of scathing anti-liberal diatribes, despicable if not unfounded ad hominems against Democratic office-holders, and outright lies, including her own easily documented shifting predictions and assertions, and still believe she’s a nice, pleasant, articulate, and polite spokesperson for the conservative cause.
Hand down. Now raise it again if you’re familiar with CNN Headline News interview show host Glenn Beck, who has recently been hired by ABC News as a semi-regular commenter on its Good Morning America program, and on the basis of his more traditional outlet appearances consider him a mild-mannered, affable, and reasonable conservative spokesman. Keep it raised if you are acquainted with Beck’s scathing diatribes against 911 widows (though only the anti-Bush ones, natch), despicable if not unfounded ad hominems against displaced Katrina victims, and sweeping hate-filled tirades against all Muslims, among other venomous denunciations of entire segments of society, which he reserves for his eponymous program.
If your hand has been down the entire time, congratulations: you know more than the State Journal-Register syndicate selector and the producer of ABC News. (Or you may simply have higher standards or refuse to plead conveniently ignorant of Malkin’s and Beck’s underlying agendas.) You also may have been wise to the pathological plagiarism of Red State website founder Ben Domenech before the editors at the Washington Post became privy to that rather disqualifying characteristic – 3 days after his career-ending hire.
Opinion editorials are written by advocacy journalists; the arguments they construct reveal more about them than the issues they advance. While Molly Ivins says, in effect, I’m an optimistic populist in virtually every column, George Will signals some configuration of Darwinist supremacy, Ellen Goodman promotes the notion of compassionate feminism, and Robert Novak boasts of seemingly unlimited access to Washington DC bigshots and players, the fact is, whether you find them convincing or utterly uncompelling, these writers do not express themselves in other, safer venues with vicious, inflammatory glee. They are legitimate precisely because they feel no compulsion to resort to hate-inspired rhetoric in more self-selected, less broad-spectrum formats, as do Malkin and Beck, among others.
While Malkin and Beck allow their nasty impulses to flourish uncaptured by “mainstream media” cameras, they are far from insane. If they were, they would be incapable of maintaining Jeckyl and Hyde personas, one for their narrow partisan audience and the other for general public consumption. (For “insane,” see Coulter, Ann, for whom there is no such thing as behaving herself for purposes of civil discourse. Which is one of several reasons she will never appear on Meet the Press.)
Ah, you may wonder, what about Ted Rall, the ultra-liberal columnist whose editorials not accidentally are physically paired with Coulter’s each week in this newspaper. Is that not a deliberate moral equivalency formulation in which his extremism on one side matches, or cancels, hers on the other? No. (Or should I say if it is intended to be, it isn’t.) While Coulter, who has no weblog – as opposed to numerous chat groups in which she manages never to participate - on which to tell you what she really thinks (which, in terms of unrestrained language, would only be redundant), Rall’s weblog never approaches the level of her vile declarations (though he did once contemplate suing her for slandering him).
In the age of computers, it would be almost negligent not to research other commentary from those whose text on this page conforms (or, in the case of Coulter, is exempt from conforming) to the newspaper’s policy for acceptable discourse. Of course, even the most preposterous statements can be framed in benign terminology.
apropos of another headline: "A senator who talks Frank-ly," ash wrote the next essay, which transitions into another topic before coming full circle to complete her initial observation:
“Editing the Editor in Opinions and Expanding the Context of Reporting”
Barney Frank is a senator? Not according to columnist George Will, who wrote the story under that incorrect banner. How generous of Will to bestow the honor of smartest liberal upon Frank, if only to argue that his ideas are worthless against sensible conservative confidence in the attributes of unbridled capitalism. Which Will placed under the rubric of “freedom,” as in free, I suppose, to indulge one’s greediest instincts.
But blamelessness where blamelessness is due. Mr. Will’s mistaken label was probably not his own, judging by the fact that the titles of my op-eds and letters are always changed presumably by an editor doubling as headline writer. In fact, Will’s headline snafu may have been the doing of the editor who acknowledged his pay raise on the same page where Mr. Will’s article ran. That would be an interesting juxtaposition of timing and location.
Turning to hard news, Kansas Senator Sam Brownback – he of the vigorously “pro-life,” pro-preservation of uselessly unused embryonic stems cells, and pro-traditional marriage persuasion - declared his Presidential candidacy. Beyond our paper’s coverage, he was interviewed on a Sunday morning political show where twice he included the adjective “large” among descriptors of his ideal American family before – twice – correcting himself. If it sounds like some kind of mental block, it really isn’t. “Large” is indeed the desirable family size to Brownback who, as a Christianist and proponent of creating Evangelical babies to outnumber those of more left-leaning parents, believes in that which he censored himself saying to an audience not privy to his church performances and secret society speeches.
In the category of tactics, though it sets no precedent, it sure has been given a workout lately. As Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum campaign supporters contributed to his Green Party rival and Connecticut “Independent Democrat” Joseph Lieberman courted Republican voters in the last election, so now would Democrats wisely advocate a Brownback victory in the Republican sweepstakes. While citizens in general and youth in particular are trending liberal, translating into more pro-choice, pro-embryonic stem cell research, and anti-homosexual demonization – in other words, tolerant and inclusive – views, the only logical response to Mr. Brownback joining the race as an opponent is a hearty Bring It On.
Of course, as anyone casually acquainted with national politics knows, Barney Frank is in the House of Representatives.
In this case, ash refers to the beginning and conclusion of a fairly long op-ed. Below are the pertinent sections, with a space indicating the omitted text. For those who are interested, she provides a link to the ENTIRE PIECE rather than presume that others wouldn’t care to read it as a separate entity. Beneath it is a snippet from a “house” editorial with a rather revealing typo, also mentioned in her letter:
It’s up to governor to clean up school-funding mess
An opportunity to be a hero to thousands of children is awaiting Gov. Rod Blagojevich. By changing the way Illinois funds its schools, he can offer many kids a way out of poverty. Of course, he is fully aware of the need for change, as state Sens. James Meeks and Emil Jones, among others, are screaming in his ear for justice for their constituents.
The governor seems to be deaf, though, to the cries of all who call for school-funding reform. And while he would have to be Horton to hear my little Who voice, maybe, just maybe I will be Jo-Jo, the little shirker whose “Yopp” will make the difference.
When Rod Blagojevich was just a pimply-faced, pubescent boy, Congress passed a pretty piece of legislation titled the Equal Education Opportunities Act of 1974. The most important sentence of this act reads, “The Congress declares it to be the policy of the United States that ... all children enrolled in public schools are entitled to equal educational opportunity without regard to race, color, sex, or national origin.”
deleted portion of article (link to entire piece)
Perhaps tonight, before his kids go to bed, the governor should read “Horton Hears a Who” to them, and when he reads, “… some poor little person who’s shaking with fear/ That he’ll blow in the pool! / He has no way to steer! / I’ll just have to save him. Because, after all, /A person’s a person, no matter how small,” he should think of Illinois’ underprivileged children.
Well, this is the end of my little Yopp. You know, governor, a donkey could do worse than follow the example of a soft-hearted elephant.
and
Both measures, incidentally, we co-sponsored by Sen. John Cullerton, D-Chicago.
to both of which ash responds:
“Editorial Observations”
I like the way local columnist Alice Armstrong uses the rhetorical device known as “coming full circle” in her latest opinion piece. It consists of baiting the reader with fairly obscure allusions (in this case, to “Horton” and “Jo-Jo”), who must read through the rest of the essay for the explanation to those references and of how they are apt metaphors.
However, I am irritated by Armstrong employing a cliché – and a rather mean-spirited and, more relevantly, irrelevant one – namely, the “pimply-faced teenager” (or, in her variation, “boy”) to describe Governor Blagojevich as a youngster. Beyond the obvious question of whether a clear-skinned adolescent would presumably be more credible, insightful, or knowledgeable than a blemish-afflicted one, it reinforces the notion that acne is a frivolous rite of passage less significant than getting a driver’s license or graduating high school.
On the opposite page, one of Freud’s legacies demonstrates itself in the phrase “Both measures…we co-sponsored by Sen. John Cullerton…” Between that “slip” and the previous day’s designation of Massachusetts’ Barney Frank as a senator, the editor may be asking himself the non-rhetorical question, “Who edits the editor?”
Finally, ash came across the following on the day she conducted an impromptu appraisal, each of which is cited in her assessment of Mike’s mandated presentation of letters:
Desiring world peace can’t be called ‘girlie’
I was going to ignore Robert Ryan’s silly letter depicting liberals as “girlie men,” but the outrageous letters that followed must be addressed. The indignant responses paraded lists of famous liberal men who supported wars or fought in wars themselves, as proof, apparently, that liberals aren’t “girlie men”? Come on, can’t you do better than that?
In case no one has noticed, our young people are dying and being injured in the Bush Oil War today, without regard to gender. Support of violence and war is not proof of a person’s courage, or gender. Does Condoleezza Rice’s wholesale support of war make her a “boyee woman”? Most of those beating the drums of war are in no position to be involved in the fight; they merely want someone else to do it.
Historically, many have bravely taken stands for peace against seemingly insurmountable obstacles.
In India, peace and nonviolence advocate Mahatma Ghandi stood down the mighty British Empire. In America, peace and nonviolence pioneer Martin Luther King Jr. fought the political system of hatred, bigotry and war. If he were alive, I believe he would have a dream of an America where violence was not some kind of a rite of manhood.
Also consider that Jesus taught love of enemies and turning the other cheek. Think of that when putting a WWJD sticker on your bumper, and then calling those against war, killing and violence “girlie.” If desiring world peace is to be labeled “girlie,” then please call ME “girlie”!
Fears nuclear bomb in suitcase will be next
I can’t understand why the Democrats and some Republicans are investing in the defeat of the United States. They are against a surge in troop strength in Iraq.
The troops over there in Iraq say the extra 20,000 troops will help defeat the terrorists. I don’t want to hear those in Congress say they support the troops when they don’t. They are talking about defunding the war.
As far I’m concerned those members of Congress are a bunch of cowards and traitors. I pray that this country does not get hit again. If it does, it will be in the form a suitcase nuclear bomb.
Re-examine priorities for foreign clinics
I read Monday’s letter from Judith Barringer with great interest.
She refers to President Bush’s gag rule, which stipulates that organizations that receive U.S. family planning assistance cannot provide, counsel or refer for abortion services. Because of this, she says, clinics in such places as rural Ethiopia and Kenya have closed. Obviously, these clinics were set up for abortions only and have no interest in the health of pregnant women.
These women are in desperate need of medical attention and other “family planning services.” I think it is a pitiful thing to leave these people with no health care just because you can’t advise them to have an abortion.
Who do we really care about? Our priorities must be re-examined and clinics should be for health care, not for destroying babies.
ash’s reply addresses all three:
“Not so arbitrary designation of time”
Friday, January 26: as good a day as any to survey the editorial landscape. First, the overview. As promised, since the year’s onset, a detectible imposition of political balance, translating into more right-leaning content. And those lucky conservative contributors: since there are fewer of them (not in the community, mind you, but in the self-selected subset willing and [somewhat] able to communicate), each individual is represented that much more.
Turning to the day’s particulars: please, sir, may I have one more? That would be the seemingly delayed rejection of (though actually a response to the first wave of responses to the triggering event to) the unfortunate phrase “girly-man” dispatched by authoritarian soldiers to encapsulate an entire philosophy, as if it (the phrase, not the philosophy) hadn’t already been thoroughly demolished by previous liberal writers.
Speaking of liberal writers, there’s a reason we beseech credulous, gullible minds to sever ties with Rush, the Fox News Channel, et. al., or at minimum to limit severely their exposure to the agenda-driven messages. Not simply because “cowardly traitors” and its various permutations is dead on arrival, but because the undisciplined, propaganda-susceptible brain is unequipped to distinguish between spoon fed albeit meaningless sound bites and original thought.
Thus the (larger) stable of liberal writers reflexively overwhelms the (smaller) conservative stable, the only question being how many of us find the juicy bait irresistible or, to employ the dreaded sports metaphor, how many of us can’t NOT slam that slow ball directly over the rafters and out of the park?
It’s not a fair fight, nor should it be as truth battles caricature in the Iraq war debate. As for governmental funding of health care worldwide, when a well-meaning, concerned correspondent can’t comprehend the compassion-based, humanitarian, and benevolent nature of family planning programs (including the abortion option) in impoverished nations, it is sadly apparent that no rational dissertation in these pages or elsewhere will ever persuade her of their validity.
By the way, as of this writing, a correction for the “Senator” misidentification hasn’t been issued.