J_B The Nation Calls

[Peter_Puget]

http://hnn.us/articles/1074.html

[j_b]

ok, so what are you trying to say?

[Peter_Puget]

Answering your question as to why I didn't comment on the quality of your Nation reference in that "missing thread." Here is a clear example of the poor quality skewed reporting appearing in that occasionally but not often lately worthwhile journal. Sad to see a publication that once pub;ished people as diverse as John Quincy Admams, Hannah Arendt and Chris Hitchens descend so far.

 

PP

[j_b]

1) it was only a reference among many others I could have chosen.

 

2) you are focusing on the form and not the substance of the argument: it is hypocritical to claim to be concerned about human rights while shaking hands with sharon in the white house.

 

3) even if the piece you refer to is right about this particular editor of the nation, I don't see how you can infer that everything published in the nation is rubbish. You'll have to admit this is quite a leap and somehow akin to the image of "shooting the messenger" as discussed by sternstein ("this editor is wrong in this one piece therefore the nation is bad"). Anyhow I can't personally say whether or not this is justified criticism; I read "fire at will" and thought it reasonable.

 

just to add to the substance of the argument:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2373191.stm

[j_b]

quote:

---

that once pub;ished people as diverse as John Quincy Admams, Hannah Arendt and Chris Hitchens

---

as if everything said by any and all these authors was actually worthwhile (or even right)