Bob Herbert, recipient of much MSNBC praise recently, has soberly decreed: "Argue substance. And then let the people decide." (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/opinion/20herbert.html)How does Mr. Herbert's article advance his noble cause? What does a fly-by job of mentioning healthcare as a "scandal" have to do with substance? What about mentioning a few books (and quoting them!) helps the people decide? How does discussing the tragic and heartbreaking Sgt. Andersson anecdote substantiate discussion of the issues?
Didn't Mr. Herbert mean to say that only those nettlesome forms of "distraction" ("fear-mongering, bogus arguments over who really loves America, race-baiting, gay-baiting") were to be proscribed? And if so, then a lot of issues on which the American electorate disagrees with Bob Herbert are now off limits. If not, then I'm sure we'll see restraint in future hyperbolic umbrage/indignation - notificiations of high offense - ukases.
No comments:
Post a Comment