Another bloated liberal puss bag sucked in by the "authenticity" of the 3rd world.
Ah, the "I got some nasty letters, I'll print the really extreme ones" op-ed. So (yawn) fascinating.
I wrote about the suppression of public dissent
In other words, it was a fiction piece. Got it. (How on earth can someone .write about "suppression of public dissent" in a major paper, if there is indeed suppression of public dissent, anyway? The mind boggles.)
Little did I know that I was about to experience exactly how fearfully limited public debate in America really is.
Let me guess, this genius considers disagreement with her vaunted opinion to be a sign of "limited public debate". (Now, if everyone monolithically agreed with her about everything, that would represent a high level of "public debate" indeed.)
Somehow, my expression of dismay was twisted in a highly selective retelling in the New York Post, a right-wing tabloid, as "an America-loathing diatribe. Little... in the foreign press outside al-Jazeera comes close to Roddick's viciousness".
And the New York Post was wrong in this characterization because....? (Note: They could have been wrong in saying this, I didn't read her original article. But it's not enough for her to mention the New York Post and call it a "right-wing tabloid". She has to explain why they were wrong.)
It didn't help that the Post, a bastion of right-wing simple-minded thinking, had deliberately and outrageously misrepresented my opinion. Somehow, my criticism of George Bush had been equated with a hatred of the country he leads,
I doubt that the Post actually did this. Once again she seems to think it's sufficient to just call it a name involving the term "right-wing" and then paraphrase what they said for us. Why not quote what the Post said indicating that they "equated" her "criticism of George Bush" "with a hatred of the country he leads"? Funny, she was able to quote the Post earlier, but can't now.
But I also fear that perhaps this is the natural result of the atmosphere created when a sitting president tells his subjects...
SUBJECTS? Ain't got no "subjects" in this country. Well, I guess I'll be generous and assume that this is a slip of the tongue for the British SUBJECT who wrote this. Anyway, to sum up so far: "1. the Post wrote bad stuff about what I wrote, disagreeing with me. 2. since you readers probably won't feel sorry for me just because of disagreement, here's a paraphrase of what the Post wrote about me (no quotes), isn't it horrendous? (No, please don't check if I'm characterizing what the Post wrote accurately.) 3. I blame the fact that the Post wrote what I'm claiming they wrote on the President's speech."
It is to laugh.
Criticism of Bush, then, is tantamount to friendship with Bin Laden. The mind reels at the logic.
No, the mind reels at the lazy use of the straw man. No one said this. (Remember, she hasn't provided us with a single quote from anyone in the Post who said this. I'm sure she can dig up an email from some wacko to this effect, but I've got emails from wackos regarding everything from million-dollar-deals in Nigeria to Al Qaeda's sinister plans for some shopping mall on Halloween 2001...)
None the less, I quickly learnt what abuse has been levelled at other people who have dared to criticise the Bush administration in the past 12 months.
"Abuse" in this context meaning disagreement, plus the occasional wacko hate mail which she'll pretend is representative of the rest of us - the millions of people who disagree with her - of course.
I hadn't realised just how brave other people had been to take even the most reasonable public stand against government policies with which they disagreed.
"Brave" indeed. Sure takes a lot of "bravery" to make statements which get you glossy profiles on Entertainment Tonight and in Rolling Stone and make you the toast of ritzy trendy cocktail parties the like....
It was comforting to know, however, that I was suddenly reviled alongside such admirable thinkers as Norman Mailer, Noam Chomsky, Erica Jong, Susan Sontag, Robert Fisk and Ralph Nader.
It's so disappointing when someone parodies themself like this. No work remains for me.
Again, good company to find yourself in!
Oh boy, she felt the need to say this "again". Pathetic.
[some quotes] This, apparently, is the calibre of conservative political discourse among my detractors.
And they are wrong because....?
But it is a vocal vigilante minority that is attempting to intimidate those with whom it disagrees, and it is able to do this with the encouragement of Bush, who – by equating dissenters with terrorists – has declared open season on anyone who disagrees with him.
Yeah, "open season", sure. For example, this poor lady has been bombarded with.... ELECTRONS!!! Why, her very life is in danger from these deadly... EMAILS!!!
Which, of course, proves precisely the point of my original article: the freedom to dissent is in danger in America.
No, she DISPROVES the point of her article. If the freedom to "dissent" were in danger she wouldn't even be able to write this crap.
The freedom to "dissent", by the way, is what is being exercised by the scattered wackos who wrote over-the-top stuff to her in (I'll say it again) EMAILS. They are "dissenting" FROM HER. I guess she can't quite grasp that possibility, being such a genius and all.
