Comments on: Slate’s Balderdash and Bullshit

By: e. patterson

e. patterson — Sun, 27 Jun 2004 02:59:22 +0000

Slate’s politics have always been rather to the right, with the exception of some specific columnists, including David Edelstien, who writes generally awesome and erudite movie reviews. I was a bit confused when they started carrying Doonesbury. Seemed apples and oranges… And, were they always in bed with the now eviscerated (again, it has exceptions, like Democracy Now!) NPR, or IS that a more recent development? I looked at the “caveats and curlicues” a couple of times when it first appeared. Did not compute. Sounds as if Saletan has gotten pretty sophisticated with his editing/lying. When I continued to see that the column was “on” every day, I wondered what laborious work it required to pretend Kerry’s use of the language was as bizarre as junior’s. Not curious enough to flip to it. Apparently it requires lying. Pretty much a hallmark of the Cheney Administration, anyway. Precision, and even belaboring a point, aren’t comparable to the tortuous and pathetic smirking and (yes) evil machinations of Mr. Malaprop.

By: Soul

Soul — Wed, 23 Jun 2004 15:49:46 +0000

Slate has pretty much always sucked. It’s like the New Republic. Warmed over half-assed 90′s platititudes and “on the other hand”-ism is rampant. Thanks for reminding me again why I don’t care what they have to say.
I truly have no idea what the hell that analogy means. Are the “kerryisms” the meat or the bone? did I order a chunk of Kerry’s hide when I wasn’t looking?

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 23 Jun 2004 02:45:00 +0000

Just to pile on Slate here, Chris Hitchens’ essay on Farenheit 9/11 which appeared there a couple days ago is mostly a pile of crap. Lo, how the mighty art fallen. I mean, what’s with that guy? It’s like he made a conscious decision to be reckless, stupid, and dishonest… sorry, off subject.