Touring the DH editorial page: A little shop of horrors

I’m sort of glad I didn’t read the DH editorial page much this week.  Look at what I missed….

Letter-writer and false-consciousness expert Todd Rund:

In fact, what use is “hope” at all?

And no, reading the rest of the letter doesn’t really change the meaning of that line.  It just sort of makes it worse.  (Interesting side note: The letter was about 340 words.  I had assumed the word limit was 250 or maybe 300 in the DH.  Either I am wrong, or Hering decided to make an exception.)

Hering – and yes, there’s going to be lots of Hering:

A program to grind down the protruding concrete slabs would help protect pedestrians’ toes.

One would think the city is rolling in money.  Or maybe that Hering feels no need to be consistent in his editorials at all – he talks a lot about curbing spending and not raising taxes, but then proposes something so low priority as grinding sidewalk slabs with no sense of irony whatsoever.  Give me a break.

Better yet, Hering derides a gas-specific sales tax without noting that he normally supports a sale tax:

How would this help? Gas tax income would be more volatile than it is already, for the price of gas is likely to fluctuate a lot more than the amount of gas being bought.

There’s enough debate already about the gas tax and any potential alternatives. No reason to complicate things with this percentage plan. (hh)

A commenter also makes the obvious point.

A few commenters – especially the ever-reliable SAHSgrad – point out the complete lack of evidence Hering provides when riding his grass-seed-burning hobbyhorse:

If this bill passes, there’s good reason to believe that the valley’s grass-seed agriculture will lose its competitive advantage and eventually fade away — to be replaced by what? (hh)

Before you ask, no, Hering provides no evidence that ending the last little bit of burning will destroy the grass seed industry in the valley.  One would have thought ending the first 80 percent would have done that, but apparently not.

Then, of course, Hering endorses the violation of international law (The First and Third Geneva Conventions, which the US has signed, address the wounded on the battlefield and prisoners of war, respectively) for no apparent reason:

The Guantanamo dilemma — the men there can’t be tried, and they can’t be held indefinitely — leads to a terrible conclusion that nobody seems to want to spell out: In any future battles in the terror war, take no prisoners.

The fact that the Guantanamo ‘dilemma’ is a rather transparent false choice – it wasn’t unti the Bush Administration arbitrarily declared it so that all existing laws and rules governing prison and prisoners weren’t sufficient, despite having worked for decades or centuries beforehand – doesn’t seem to occur to Hering.  Also, I have to ask again:  Does anyone over at Lee read what he puts in the paper?  Do they really want an editor suggesting that the right course of action is killing the wounded?  Because that’s what Hering just advocated.

There is more, but I’m disgusted enough by the specter of a newspaper editor failing to bat an eye while suggesting that the US fail to care for or kill wounded enemy human beings to stop reading the DH.

Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: