Too bad that it seems to have become personal with Dave Matthews, but at least now I know that reading comprehension skills are not required of Republican county chairmen. Other than that, Dave is entitled to his own diatribes, but readers who correctly noted the elegiac (damn, those big words again) of my original piece universally enjoyed it, and I've seldom received more positive comments than I have since it was published.
One reader liked it so much that he dropped off a copy of his father's self-published WWI memoirs for me to read. Apparently he didn't read the part about my grandfather the mass murderer -- and rightly so, because nowhere was this written.
But in the absence of a coherent party platform, poor old Dave has bankrupt ideology to peddle, axes to grind and straw men to bludgeon. Like I said, too bad. For all his previous bluster and hokum, I actually thought he was capable of reason.
One thing's for sure: He sure isn't going to like this week's column.
Thanks for reading, big guy.
LETTERS: Reader unhappy with Tribune columnist
Now, I realize that very few people can read more than one paragraph of this author’s writings without scratching their heads and saying, “huh?”
7 comments:
I enjoyed your column and thought it was well written...not only because we seem to think fairly similarly (although not always) but more so because I enjoy well reasoned columns with articulate thought, whether I agree with the underlying points or not.
After reading the letter "bashing" the very existence of your column with a "how DARE you" tone, I wondered if it seems to anyone else these days as if those on the right side of the political spectrum have a belief that anything with which they disagree should be banned, barred, expunged and removed from the planet. Have we, as a society, reached a point where there exists an inability to ponder contrary thoughts and/or disagree with differing opinions WITHOUT a need to not just loudly proclaim such disagreement, but also the need to undertake affirmative efforts to remove any differing commentary from the arena of public thought?
Perhaps I'm failing to recognize such an effort from the left side (where I usually find myself sitting), but it seems to me that liberals are generally more inclined to disagree without declaring the differing view to be invalid, without any merit and demanding of removal from the world view.
Perhaps too many conservatives have become used to what doing whatever Limbaugh and Beck tell them to do, thinking however they're told to think, and therefore feel the need to go forth & castigate those who feel differently. I myself listen to several varying news sources in the car during work trips, and do not mind hearing a differing school of thought, so long as its not telling me HOW to think, or to spurn anyone who fails to agree.
Maybe I'm wrong. It certainly wouldn't be the first time.
Anyhow, back to work. Sorry I missed Fox 41 yesterday - it was winding down by the time I got to the office. Hope it went well.
this is sad, very sad.
This is the second "big" GOP-er who has used our war dead as a political tool to further their "conservative" agenda.
I had contact with Mr. Matthews(via email)several times in 2007. We even met very briefly. He mentioned that it would be nice to get together and discuss politics.
My impression of him was quite favorable.
First impressions are often wrong. That letter is pitiful and so far off base--like much of his public writing since my initial contact with him.
Mr. Matthews , please take something to settle the bile in your stomach--if not your soul.
While I tend to agree with lawguy, I think this is an example of something else as well- assuming disagreement and twisting or ignoring facts to validate that assumption where disagreement doesn't genuinely exist.
Basically, Matthews went off on Roger for saying things he didn't say and doing things he didn't do.
When one's political stake is predicated on being the opposition rather than presenting a rational case for alternative but reasonably superior strategies and outcomes, manufactured dissent not only plays the same role as genuine dissent but often becomes necessary to maintain one's position.
It's the operational difference between just stopping something and creating something better. Frequently, the former is viewed as "reform" when it's actually nothing more the continuance of an ignorant status quo as the actual outcome is no better if not worse.
Of all of Roger’s Tribune articles, it’s curious that this is the one that attracts the backlash. Maybe it’s because most of Roger’s other articles take aim at (nominal) Democrats, even if his critique was not a traditional Democratic vs. Republican critique. In that context, Mr. Matthew’s letter makes me wonder how much he was motivated by party politics instead of principle based politics.
I think Bluegill hit the nail on the head, as Mr. Matthews' reference to Roger's blog clearly evidences a disdain of things about Roger found outside of the four corners of the article itself.
I think it's become overkill these days that if you don't support a war, or bring up historical examples of how the same acts we condemn other countries for were committed here first, then you are unpatriotic and unAmerican and all that good stuff. I think history speaks for itself, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
Post a Comment