Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Never Mind
If, like me, you were astounded by the Appleton Post-Crescent's solicitation of pro-Bush letters to the editor earlier this month, you might want to take a look at their mea culpa, published yesterday, backing off. The paper didn't mean to solicit pro-Bush letters. Honestly. "Unfortunately, we weren't clear enough in our intent. . . . We should have done a better job of stating our case." Well, yeah--if yesterday's editorial was what the paper intended its original case to be. But I'm skeptical. It reads like a lawyer's brief--carefully worded, backed with evidence, and just a wee bit defensive--whereas the earlier solicitation for letters reads like, "Come on, Bush backers! Don't let the Kerry people beat us! Where's your team spirit?" They can call it an unfortunate bit of confusion if they want, but that doesn't change the impression that the original editorial was intended as a sop to right-wing critics of the paper--which left the editorial board with egg on their faces. Now THAT'S entertainment.
Nyuk nyuk nyuk: The Mrs. sends the following e-mail forward: "How many members of the Bush Administration are needed to replace a lightbulb? The answer is SEVEN: (1) One to deny that a lightbulb needs to be replaced. (2) One to attack and question the patriotism of anyone who asks questions about the lightbulb. (3) One to blame the previous administration for the need of a new lightbulb. (4) One to arrange the invasion of a country rumored to have a secret stockpile of lightbulbs. (5) One to get together with Vice President Cheney and award a one million dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton Industries for supplying a lightbulb. (6) One to arrange a photo-op session showing Dubya changing the lightbulb while dressed in a flight suit and wrapped in an American flag. (7) And finally one to explain to Dubya the difference between screwing a lightbulb and screwing the country."
If, like me, you were astounded by the Appleton Post-Crescent's solicitation of pro-Bush letters to the editor earlier this month, you might want to take a look at their mea culpa, published yesterday, backing off. The paper didn't mean to solicit pro-Bush letters. Honestly. "Unfortunately, we weren't clear enough in our intent. . . . We should have done a better job of stating our case." Well, yeah--if yesterday's editorial was what the paper intended its original case to be. But I'm skeptical. It reads like a lawyer's brief--carefully worded, backed with evidence, and just a wee bit defensive--whereas the earlier solicitation for letters reads like, "Come on, Bush backers! Don't let the Kerry people beat us! Where's your team spirit?" They can call it an unfortunate bit of confusion if they want, but that doesn't change the impression that the original editorial was intended as a sop to right-wing critics of the paper--which left the editorial board with egg on their faces. Now THAT'S entertainment.
Nyuk nyuk nyuk: The Mrs. sends the following e-mail forward: "How many members of the Bush Administration are needed to replace a lightbulb? The answer is SEVEN: (1) One to deny that a lightbulb needs to be replaced. (2) One to attack and question the patriotism of anyone who asks questions about the lightbulb. (3) One to blame the previous administration for the need of a new lightbulb. (4) One to arrange the invasion of a country rumored to have a secret stockpile of lightbulbs. (5) One to get together with Vice President Cheney and award a one million dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton Industries for supplying a lightbulb. (6) One to arrange a photo-op session showing Dubya changing the lightbulb while dressed in a flight suit and wrapped in an American flag. (7) And finally one to explain to Dubya the difference between screwing a lightbulb and screwing the country."
