Another Sign of the Times: Texas Newspaper Dumps Dishonest Dowd

NewsMax.com ^ | 5/30/03 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

[hellinahandcart]

I don't read her column often at all--dont get it in my paper--but I used to enjoy it on occasion.

Well, that explains it. If you read her column more often, you'd see that she is wearyingly formulaic. I live in New York City, so it's impossible to avoid Maureen Dowd OR the Times.

I know a few REAL writers personally, and yes they are all liberals, and every one of them could write circles around Maureen Dowd. In their sleep.

As for her "insights", the ones she has about politics aren't worth a damn, because she's clueless. Humor? Perhaps of the unintentional variety. Molly Ivins can actually turn out some witty stuff occasionally (though again, only when she's not talking politics).

[hellinahandcart]

Is anyone here pretending to be objective? or sadder yet, does anyone here really think they ARE

I wasn't aware that the purpose of this forum was for us to be "objective".

But no, I don't think I'm objective. I think I'm right, and I also think Maureen Dowd is a hack, a Clinton sycophant, and a bitter harpy.

[b4its2late]

You're right. Trying to correct or remain calm while reading her columns is virtually impossible.

[Eowyn-of-Rohan]

BS--she is as much or more of a liar than Dowd. Plus she is obnoxious and rude. You can find ANYTHING to back up anything you say...the trouble is she puts a spin on things and conveniently leaves out other facts that negate what she is spewing...

[Eowyn-of-Rohan]

Yours is the only constructive and educational response... thanks. Maybe I can talk to YOU! What bugs me here is 1) Calling her a liar. Replacing a sentence with an ellipse isn't LYING. LYING is when someone makes something up that isn't true. There is a big difference between shortening something with an ellipse to set the stage for the particular point you are going to make and fabricating a story like that Blair character did. OK, maybe Dowd cut a little too much out of Bush's statement but I don't think it is THAT far of a stretch from his actual comment for people to be FREAKING... 2) Wanting someone FIRED and BANNED because you don't like their opinions. There is so much of this on FR--DESTROY the French ecomomy because you don't like Chirac, have the Dixie Chicks BANNED from radio stations for a remark you don't like. It is just getting so Hitlerian around here...

[hellinahandcart]

Wrong. Did you really read that piece? Her whole point was that our idiot president was trying to lull us into a false sense of security by claiming that Al-Qaeda was no longer a problem.She edited Bush's words to make it appear that he said something that he did not. The ellipsed part of the speech was the part that would have made her premise look misinformed and ridiculous.

And she did it on purpose. She can't claim she misheard or misunderstood Bush, when she had to have had the text of the entire speech in front of her while she was writing. It was an exact quote except for the ellipsed part, which she alone was responsible for (unless she's going to blame it on a stringer, like another Times writer), and which changed the meaning of the sentence way beyond simply "out of context". It was a case of "I don't care what he SAID, I know what the fool must have MEANT, so let me just tweak what he said until it sounds like what I know he must have meant."

In other words, the bitch LIED about what he said.

Surely you can see that. If not, let's take it out of the left vs. right arena and get personal. Shall we?

Up in #16, you said of Maureen Dowd: "I think she is a creative and humorous writer with some good insights. Why are you afraid of different perspectives?"

I am now going to email Maureen Dowd and tell her "Eowyn-of-Rohan over on Free Republic doesn't seem to like you very much, Mo. We were all discussing your credibility as a writer today and E-of-H said 'I think she is...afraid of different perspectives'."

Now, don't call me a liar. It's only a lie, according to your definition, if I make up something that isn't true, and you cannot deny that you DID write those very words. All I did was eliminate the ones that were inconvenient to me personally. It helped, uh, "set the stage for the particular point I was going to make."

The fact that my point was neither valid nor accurate shouldn't matter to a principled fellow like yourself. After all, it is my (cough) OPINION. That means it isn't right to hold me to account for it.

[hellinahandcart]

Oh, and as for your point 2:

I think it's incumbent upon a journalist to publish corrections when they err, and apologies when they "err deliberately". Neither Maureen Dowd nor the NY Times has done so yet. Most of us working in the real world would have been sh!t-canned for less dishonesty than that. So, I applaud the Lufkin Daily News for dropping her column. She is avoiding her duty, and that should cost her.

And I don't want to destroy the French economy because I don't like Chirac. My boycott is for LIFE, and I will live a lot longer than Chirac. I simply don't like France anymore and I can put my dollars to better use than supporting a country that looks down its collective nose at me.

I was already doing a de facto boycott of the Dixie Chicks, because I had never bought one of their CDs. But now I certainly won't. They offended me.

I am a painter by profession. My work is not political. However, this is New York and I am well aware that possibly 70% of the people who BUY MY WORK have political views I would detest, were they to be be revealed to me, and the feeling would be entirely mutual if I were to reveal mine to them. It's a matter of simple respect. When I have a show and customers come to the opening reception to meet ME, they really want to meet the person whose paintings they like. Not the person whose politics they detest. So I never mistake a reception for a political soapbox, and if I ever did, it should not surprise me when potential customers flounce off in a huff and the gallery owner begins to rethink the wisdom of devoting space on his walls to ME.

Neither the gallery owner nor the customers owe me a damned thing.

I don't owe leftist actors and musicians, or anti-American countries, a damned thing, either. I'm not going to feed the beast if I can help it, and you can't make me. :D

That's not Hitlerian. That's freedom, baby.

[Eowyn-of-Rohan]

Ah-so... mea culpa, etcetcetc

I should have stayed out of this one, because I didnt read the WHOLE thing. I am not a FELLOW by the way. But regardless, I just get frustrated around here because I am more of a moderate and to be honest, I see truths on both sides and I cant see why everyone else does. I just picked the wrong battle and didn't have enough knowledge about it to get involved...boy I did get nailed and I suppose I deserved it...opps

[hellinahandcart]

Wasn't trying to "nail" you. Just trying to help you see The Lie.

[Eowyn-of-Rohan]

Well wait and see...I suppose an apology will be forthcoming, if they are smart. YoUr boycott of French products really ends up hurting the farmers. I am not going to get into this too much but the percentage of people in France Against the US Iraq attack was certainly NOT a majority of REAL French people, when you consider about 20% are muslim, commie, neo-Nazi. I would never have bought a Dixiechicks cd anyway they aren't my style. Boycotting is effective and I have boycotted more than my share of products and businesses... but I have spent quite a bit of time in France and am aware of the diverse opinions of its citizens towards the US (many LOVE us btw) and the wholesale France bashing around here is embarrassing because it stems from such ignorance--sorry its true. And what happens if everyone boycotts us? hmmmmmmmm? anyway I am tired of this and have to eat my spaghetti. Good night. I too am an artist, BTW.

[MeekOneGOP]

[hellinahandcart]

Sorry, but I owe the French farmers nothing as well. And they owe nothing to me.

I am implacable on this point.

If the rest of the world wants to boycott us, I couldn't care less. They'd screw themselves before they screwed us.

[Young Werther]

But unlike the Times, which has been engaged in a torturous exercise of naval gazing..."

Is it me or do they really mean "watching a naval flotilla as it returns to home port!"

And I don't think the NYTimes has been flagellating anything,(spanking the monkey?) outside the editorial porta potty!