Darrell, it is always a surprise and a lesson for me to find myself reading persuasive writing rather than the expository writing I seek.
The issue I have with your sources is not that they are very often wrong, but that I never know how much right there may be. It leads to cynicism and nihilism.
For example, below <Between the two, you start to realize that she is more radical than he is, but he is by far more corrupt and deviate.> Yes she is more radical, and more statist liberal, than pragmatic liberal. But I refer to the characterization of him. The comparison to radical is, say, machievellian, not deviate. This sly non-sequitur, linking separate 'enemy' ideas/behaviors is constant in political writing, and I hate it. I hate the waste of time in having to reread for con, not for comprehension. I hate the facts that get scrambled by this kind of bs writing. Granted this one is rather mild. I just stay away from it.
Concerning Arkansas. Sounds like another undeserved slam on an enemy politician. This kind of logical construction leaves vacant in readers minds the likely situation that AR has always been good-old-boy, and Clinton simply didn't change it. Prolonging and using what exists is different than causing or corruption, or worsening it.
The worst legacy I see from the Clinton presidency is the hysteria that was generated and rewarded. Crowd + hysteria = mob. No way to decide issues, eh? |
