MaryscottOConnor's Comments (107)

“Well, for whatever reason, my first comment was censored, so I'll give this another crack...

Good for you. I'm baffled by Ms. Stanley's review, and appalled by the Cronkite piece -- I disagree vehemently with the commenter above who posted the link to it. Ms. Stanley seems to be of the opinion that today's 24 hour news cycle, which has turned virtually every aspect of news and "journalism" into soundbites designed to be understood by the lowest common denominator, is a GOOD thing... and that Mr. Cronkite's kind of journalism would be anathema to it. Well, in that one respect, she is correct; but that is not a BAD thing, and the fact that we have not seen his like again and probably will not is a terrible shame.

As for her shocking incomprehension of "Poliwood" -- it strikes me as the sort of review a high schooler might give a book if she'd only read the Cliff's Notes. And possibly managed to skip even the middle chapters of THOSE, as well.

I'm frankly shocked this woman has a job writing for the New York Times; with a comprehension level this low, I'm surprised she can READ the New York Times.”

“Oh -- and URUGUAY just lifted their ban on gays in THEIR military, too.”

“You are wrong on your "Facts." See:

Australia
Austria
Bahamas
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Lithuania
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
UK

All those nations allow gays to serve openly in their armed forces.

Best get your "facts..." um... straight... before spouting off.”

“You are correct, Peter. And probably the non-internet-based media neglects to acknowledge the role of bloggers because of a combination of disdain, fear and jealousy. I'm not in this for credit. I am, however, in this for influence -- and if getting more credit would get me more influence, then perhaps agitating for more credit is the way to go... so keep it up.”

“It's a start. And frankly, since I just might BE one of the uninsured one day, I don't mind that start.”

“Sorry, dude. You are wrong here. I think the rest of the commenters have pretty much covered the whys and wherefores of the logic.”

“I messed up.

(My first version of this answer was censored, for some reason -- I said it in another was.)”

“L-a-n-d-r-i-e-u

N-e-l-s-o-n

B-a-y-h

L-i-e-b-e-r-m-a-n

W-y-d-e-n

B-a-u-c-u-s”

“I like it.”

“What a pity about Rangel. That such an accomplished and admirable man in SO many ways should be reduced to this over what amounts to ACCOUNTING errors. For pete's sake. CHARLIE. Why didn't you get a damned ACCOUNTANT???

Or, if this really is as bad as it looks... Say it ain't so, Charlie. A LIFetime of looking out for the little guy made you think maybe it was okay to skim a little off the top for yourself? And to do it so STUPIDLY?

So, either way... Dumb, dumb, dumb.

I do so hate to be disappointed in my heroes.”

“WHy should I give a rat's patootie who David Letterman sleeps with? I have a feeling that if he propositioned a woman on his staff and she REALLY didn't feel like it and told him so, her job would NOT be in danger. I really don't think his ego is that fragile. And I REALLY don't think he would be STUPID enough to frak with even the HINT of a sexual harassment lawsuit and even INTIMATE the possibility of firing a woman for not sleeping with him.

What I REALLY think is that a woman propositioned by the likes of David Letterman would probably either be flattered AND turned on by either his genuine charisma and/or his power... and go for it -- or turn him down and feel genuinely safe in doing so for the reasons I elaborated above.

Moreover, castigating David Letterman for defending himself in public on his show -- the only way he can, basically, when this whole thing was BOUND to be dragged through the tabloids and the news networks -- and in any manner he saw fit? Patently absurd. This is a case of a man doing what he does best in a situation that is essentially NO ONE'S business but that of the people involved, but was turned into a circus by a sleazy jerk who was after a payday and used illegal and immoral actions to try to get it.

Ignore the slimeball who actually DID commit a crime.”

“Still waiting for Don't Ask, Don't Tell to be repealed.

And waiting.

And waiting.

And waiting.”

“You have your cart before your horse. Just how do you determine if someone has committed a crime without a trial?

Methinks you mean if someone is SUSPECTED of committing a crime and there is sufficient evidence pointing to that person, he should be arrested and accused and put on trial for the commission of that crime...

et cetera.

No? Or do you think people were better off in the days when "He looks guilty - hang him" was good enough?”

“Silly denicci -- those aren't PEOPLE.”

“Ding ding ding! Give the man his prize.

Absolutely correct.

Due process is now optional - something we'd consider ourselves LUCKY to get if arrested -- unlike the hapless, hopeless Mssrs. Padilla et al.”

“Which personal freedoms of mine do you suggest I sacrifice to "right our ship?"

That is, in addition to the ones I've already had stripped from me... like the freedom to board an airplane without having had to take off my damned shoes first, because ONE guy tried to blow up a plane with a badly made incendiary device...

The freedom to carry an opened bottle of water onto said plane -- or a jar of cold cream that's bigger than 4 ounces...

Oh, the list goes on and on and on.”

“But the health care at Guantanamo is FABULOUS.”

“Five words:

WSJ owned by Rupert Murdoch.

'nuf sed.”

“Absolutely, it should be shown to ANYONE who simply couldn't stay married to the person s/he married.”

“I'll believe Keith Olbermann is a completely independent journalist the day he does an Special Comment on just ONE of the hideous things NBC's parent company does on a daily basis.”

“I'm flabbergasted that people are still defending the police for arresting this man after HE PROVED HE LIVED THERE.

NO EXCUSE. None. No matter WHAT he said or HOW he said it -- the man LIVED THERE. End of story. Get the HELL out of my house.

Good god. They DID behave stupidly. The fact that Obama walked back that statement is what disappoints ME.”

“WHY would you have been arrested? Is there a law against yelling at a cop? There is not. There is no law mandating RESPECT for a police officer. You are ALLOWED to yell at a cop. You are, in fact, allowed to call him names. There IS. NO. LAW. AGAINST. IT.

It is NOT disturbing the peace to call a police officer a name. They are abusing their authority to arrest a man for yelling at them.”

“Oh, cruzy... there you go, trying to insert LOGIC into this discussion.”

“Here's something else I find bizarre: Total strangers to the man rushing not only to defend this entire grotesquerie... but to vilify someone who critiques it.

Not to criticise him, mind you -- to outright vilify him.

Some of the comments on this post have been downright vicious. And I don't think the people making them even have the comprehension skills to appreciate that their hero wasn't the target of the author's ire.

I weep for the future.”

“Bravo.”