Biting The Hand That Publishes You

I attended a "Writers Bloc" event this week at UCLA where Michael Kinsley (a big deal guy) was "in conversation" with Mickey Kaus.

Kinsley, has been moderator of Firing Line, editor of The New Republic, editor at Harpers, managing editor of Washington Monthly, American Editor of The Economist. co-host of Crossfire, founding editor of Slate, the Los Angeles Times Editorial Page Editor, and he served as American editor of The Guardian. He is currently a regular columnist for Time Magazine.

During the question period following the "conversation" I asked Kinsley for his opinion about the media consolidation in our country and was quite dismissive of that notion. He, as do so many others, believes in print and internet delivery of news and information, relegates television to the scrapheap of communications in the world. (These are my words, not his.)

I was not thrilled by his reply and I voiced my contrary opinion and he said in a very dismissive way: "you are wrong about this!"

I came away a bit annoyed, and would have been happier had he thrown in a "in my opinion you are wrong" line.

It is incredible to me that so much discourse ends in a "you are wrong" conclusion. There is something absolute in the "you are wrong" statement. I learned long ago that opinions are more honestly shared when they are listened to and not dismissed out of hand, particularly with the "you are wrong" admonition.

I annoy many by saying that "gravity cares not one bit if you agree with it or not." Most other non physical stuff is relegated to opinions that are not necessarily right or wrong, just different. There is rarely a time when it serves anyone to admonish anyone else with the "you are wrong about that" when it is only their opinion.

And now a rapid segue.

When I am asked who I would support as the Democratic nominee for the Presidency, my smart ass reply would be something like "Donald Duck if he was a Democrat."

It is bothersome to me when so many, including Arianna Huffington, when appearing on Bill Maher's Program was desirous of diminishing Hillary Clinton because she voted in favor of authorizing President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refused to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

In my opinion Hillary took what she thought was the correct course of action at that time and it is not difficult to understand why she did what she did. I was not thrilled by Arianna's position "of certainty."

In any event, should this mean that any of the 77 Senators or the 296 members of the House should be forever be "branded" in some negative way for their "yes" vote on this issue?

I have listened my entire life to the "I'm right and you're wrong" by people that are completely invested in their own positions. This does have a tendency of stifling a dialogue. As things turned out, Bush had misrepresented almost everything and took our nation to war. Blame Bush and his people for the transgression, and not the people who authorized what was dishonestly presented as a grave threat to our country.

For those like me who are older, you might remember Werner Erhardt, the founder of est; It was probably 30 years ago that he and I had a bit of a disagreement over a "media matter." He was annoyed at being challenged and I told him: "Werner, you make up the rules in the room, not the law in the universe." Sadly George W. Bush makes up the rules in the room as well as in the universe.

I am not exactly sure how this is relevant, but I've always wanted to relate the story.

And by the way Michael Kinsley, it was you who was wrong!

Norman Horowitz

Comments

[burnt]

part 1
Spinning again today Norman? Sorry but there are many of us who have not succumbed to your demands that we exhibit early onset of Alzheimer's. I will point to the primary reason WHY you are wrong before thoroughly dismissing you and all the other Clinton surrogates who want to revise this point in history. The blood of so many people is indelibly on her hands.

Her vote to send this country to war was totally self-serving. The primary reason she willingly followed/pushed Bush into the Middle East was as a precursor for her Presidential campaign. Her credentials were very weak in the area of "national security" and she desperately needed to pad them prior to throwing her hat into the ring. Her reasons for committing our troops, treasury and world standing to Iraq, served one person... Hillary Clinton.

Before any politician commits the nation to a course of war, that individual at the very least should make every effort to consider all the facts that surround the question. Before she sided with Bush, did she *even* take the time to read the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate? This was incredibly important information needed to make a considered decision. Clinton has never denied that failure to inform herself of the facts. Many of those who voted against invading, did so based upon those findings. Why didn't she study the facts?... because she had already decided upon a course for reasons that were wholly self-serving.

[burnt]

part 2
Clinton stated: "I made a considered judgment, I didn"t make a speech, I made a decision and it was a decision based on my best assessment on what would be in the interest of our country at that very uncertain time."

That claim is an outright lie. Her decision was based upon the political interests of Hillary Clinton. When you insist: "In my opinion Hillary took what she thought was the correct course of action at that time and it is not difficult to understand why she did what she did."... I would have to agree with you... but not for reasons that you would lead us to believe. Her self-serving justifications are not difficult to understand. Most all of her positions are geared towards merely serving Clinton dynastic needs through regaining power.

No politician should lead a country into war without due consideration for the people, nation and world. What she did IS unforgivable. She is NOT worthy of the office. She is a Republican posing as a Democrat... and a dangerous war monger. A vote for war was a vote for war. A vote for war for the underlying purpose of propping up a weak politician's credentials for a future run at White House office is WRONG.

Obliterate Iran???... more of the same. We have had seven plus years of lies and deceit. Nobody in their right mind would support more of the same. Fortunately for all, she has been defeated.

[tel8034]

THE ANSWER IS YES, YES, YES.....

YES, the 77 Senators and 296 members of the House should forever be "branded" in the same negative way [as Hillary] for their "yes" vote on this issue [voting for the Iraq war]

These 77 Senators and 296 members of the House just like Hillary, DID NOT read the reports before they voted, and just like Hillary THEY DID SO BECAUSE THEY WERE ONLY PANDERING FOR VOTES.

The "say and do anything to win votes" strategy, caused the USA and the ENTIRE WORLD untold misery because of this UNNECESSARY WAR, and is the same type of politics which Obama wants to change.

Hillary voted for the war like McCain and Bush; wants to OBLITERATE Iran like Bush and McCain; is in bed with McCain and Bush on the DUMB Summer Gas Tax Holiday; and is running a SMEAR TACTIC campaign similar to that of Bush and McCain.......Is Hillary a Democrat or a Republican?.........But when you think about it, SHE WAS IN FACT A GOLDWATER GIRL.

[Gma11]

Here in Puddledunk, Wisconsin I researched the topic. Most of the people I knew who didn't watch a lot of cable television knew exactly what Bush was up to. If Hillary couldn't have figured that out, I certainly don't want her answering the phone at 3:00 a.m.!!

[HeevenSteven]

I agree with you about media consolidation. Even though commercial Television has never been the go-to place to be informed, it's worse now than ever. (excepting PBS ); and of course an ignorant electorate is awful for democracy.

Hillary should have at least read the NIE Norm; lacking that, she should have had someone read it for her. I think it's completely reasonable to point out that someone with her "vast experience" on the world stage completely blew it. The fact that she had plenty of company doesn't excuse her.