Month: November 2009

The reader who started the thread replies:

A reader wrote, "The gatekeepers own the future."

Agreed. However, as modern consumers we're already lined-up in front of the gates through which passes the crap we're most apt to appreciate. And, we're connected to like-thinking people on Facebook and Twitter that will alert us to any crap we might miss. We largely select what we read based on what we want to hear. This is a separate problem/issue, e.g. Fox News (although the tendency is endemic). I consider myself open-minded, but I still find myself day after day getting my news through the same filters: Talking Points Memo (Josh Marshall), Washington Monthly (Steve Benen), and of course, the Dish.

It's the issue roiling the PR industry. It used to be 20 journalists reached 80% of the market. Now thousands of people comment and influence the purchasing decisions of untold numbers (quantifying the return on social media marketing is still getting sorted out). One thing's certain, it's put relating to the public back into public relations.

I don't see the large publishing houses adapting to this new reality.

We don't either. By the way, you can buy this reader's "crap" here.

A reader writes:

I live in suburban Kansas City, hardly the most dynamic social/religious/racial melting pot, but a pretty tolerant place nonetheless. Yesterday, I read to my daughter’s third grade class, and afterwards, I answered questions about my career as a writer. The teacher asked if there were a person I’d like to write a book about, and I told of a very successful Japanese-American man I know who came of age during World War II, enduring all sorts of unpleasantness because America was at war with his ancestral home. One of my daughter’s classmates is the son of two Iraqi immigrants, and he’s the sweetest, most engaging kid. Without any sense of self-pity, he said “I think I understand how that man felt.” 

Last night, I was back at school as the third graders saluted America in song, and that same boy was on stage singing his heart out. During the same program, a Muslim girl born in Turkey played the part of the Statue of Liberty and gave the “tired, poor, huddled masses” speech. Her mother, a naturalized citizen, was in tears. That boy, that girl and that mom love America. They are Americans, and they are patriots. And any line of thought that tries to marginalize them is as un-American a thing as I can imagine.

Today on the Dish we did our best to honor America's veterans. First we featured the president's tribute in full – a speech that Andrew both lauded and lamented. David Ignatius praised the troops, the Dish connected a soldier and his father, James Joyner questioned the meaning of "heroes," readers pushed back, and a pair of beagles showed their appreciation. Goldblog called for more Muslims in the military and Barney Frank set a timeline for scrapping DADT.

In healthcare coverage, David Leonhardt guided us through the House bill, Saletan wrangled the Stupak debate, and Andrew took at look at the whole messy process of reform. We also covered the bizarre beating of a Greek Orthodox priest down in Florida and an odd act of heroism by a Muslim-American woman in Delaware.

The fact-checking of Palin continued here and here, and even Fox News got in the act. Andrew discussed  both his marriage and his relationship to the Catholic Church. We found a catchy youtube on marriage equality and a cool ad with faces.

— C.B.

A reader writes:

Blacks, slave and free, have fought in every war America has engaged in without exception from before the Revolution and the War of 1812 all the way to the "War on Terror". They were always full citizens in every regard save that explicitly denied them by bigotry. Blacks have been dying for America from the beginning on the battlefield and right here at home.

Like gays the only difference is in the recognition of their sacrifice. It's a safe bet that there were homosexuals under arms in the Colonial struggle as well. Not being honored is a far cry from not being there.

A reader writes:

That picture you posted features my son front and center.  I spoke to him last night and he expressed what a moving ceremony it was.  This has impacted him deeply and his unit was hit quite hard (3 of the fatalities and 11 wounded).  One of those killed, PFC Pearson, was in the same basic training class as Josh. 

I have been in constant contact with him since the day it happened and his spirits remain quite high, despite the circumstances.  He remains proud to be in the service (I sent him a text this morning telling him how proud his step-mother and I are of him this Veteran’s Day and his response was a resounding HOOAH!) and his resolve has strengthened somewhat about his coming deployment to Afghanistan.
 
Thanks for finding that photo… it was a wonderful gift to see the son I haven’t seen in almost a year standing tall and honoring his fallen brothers with a look of quiet, yet anguished, determination on his face.  I will be forwarding that photo on to everyone in our family.

The Dish has a multitude of odd connections and associations every day. It's the joy of the internet. But connecting this son to this father this way is a new and moving serendipity.

And thank you, sir, for your sacrifice and your son for his service.

Goldblog writes that "the military has a real and abiding need to recruit more Muslims, and not fewer, to its ranks, for all the obvious reasons — language skills and cultural knowledge, for starters." His follow up:

I want all sorts of Muslims (people of Arab descent, Iranian descent, Pashtun descent) in our military for all the obvious reasons, including, by the way, because the military can serve as an effective melting pot and break down barriers among different ethnic groups (as it has done so effectively for blacks and whites). But this doesn't mean that soldiers — of all backgrounds (Timothy McVeigh comes to mind) — shouldn't, or can't, be screened for dangerous behaviors or beliefs. Of course I want more Muslim soldiers in the American military. What I don't want is anti-American soldiers in the American military.

The purge of the last few Republican moderates intensifies.

A reader writes:

Those on Flight 93, in the towers, and in uniform at ground zero epitomize heroism because of the severity of their respective situations and their courageous responses to them.  They became heroes at a level recognized by the entire world.  But, as you wrote:

We rightly see servicemembers as special – because they make possible everything else. Without defense, we would have no secure country. And without citizens prepared to risk their lives, we would have no defense.

By this logic (which I completely agree with) the very act of enlisting is in itself a heroic act.  Maybe not on the same scale as those who risked their lives on 9/11, but to the enlisting individual's family, friends, and community, of course it is.  That thirteen of such individuals would lose their lives, not in combat, but on their home soil, is tragic.  They are victims of something we presently do not understand, but they are still heroes in their own right. Let's not split hairs here.

Another writes:

While the term hero was rightfully reclaimed on 9/11 to be reserved for those who do more heroic feats than hit home runs or score touchdowns, I agree that society is slipping back to using the term in a broader sense in recent times.  However, I disagree with taking the title away from those who serve in an all-volunteer fighting force at a time that America is fighting two wars.  Especially on today of all days.  Whether they died with a gun in hand or not, in the US or overseas, they were heroes because they served when we really needed them.

Responding to Reihan, Larison makes his pick:

What the war was for Democrats in 2004, health care legislation and bailouts will be for the Republicans in 2012. Romney fits the Kerry mold perfectly, and like Kerry he will be forced by the strength of the primary challenge from some Dean-like representative of the “Republican wing of the Republican Party” to run away from his record on health care and bailouts. In fact, Romney has already been trying to make people forget that he favored the bailouts when it mattered, and no doubt he will engage in some of his typical dishonesty when confronted with the question of his record of support for health care mandates.

Like Kerry, he will have zero credibility in opposing most of the President’s agenda, which means that Romney’s already fairly strange focus on foreign policy and national security may have to become the centerpiece of his campaign to distract attention from his record of signing off on universal health care in Massachusetts and endorsing deeply unpopular bailouts of Wall Street. For all of the ridicule he received, Kerry nearly won, but I doubt that Romney would be able to do as well as Kerry did unless economic conditions worsen severely.

Plus: Romney makes Kerry seem almost authentic.