Thank you for your kind words in your most recent letter saying how nice I am. However, I must admit confusion at the notion of my being “Lois Learner.” (Nice spelling, by the way.)
I was also surprised to no end that you could divine my agenda; all this time, I was unaware I had an agenda, but I guess I was wrong. I suppose I should get on that right away.
Having spoken to you on the phone for quite some time on a busy day, not only explaining the policies of the page (including how one could get perhaps-specious arguments in by attributing them to their source), but also going through your original letter to point out the trouble spots and where the correct information has been gathered, I was also confused how I was transformed into an ignorant editor who had no idea what the law entailed. Having consulted the original documents, various nonpartisan fact checks, news accounts and other sources, I guess I was just wrong … I should simply trust an analysis, from a partisan group, that doesn’t actually analyze the proposed law in question and misconstrues previously proposed policies. How dumb of me.
And I had no idea how wrong I was about party affiliation in all those polls … here I was seeing all these polls that said that more people identified as independent, with both Democrats and Republicans around 30% (though with the leaners, Democrats tended to hit around 55%), when really those polls consistently showed that 40% identified with GOP, and 20% as Democratic. Gosh, perhaps I should ask for a refund on my master’s degree in research since I obviously don’t understand polls or their methodology. Or that party identification rises and falls like the tides, along with parties’ fortunes. Or that history is malleable.
Nor did I know that the perfect letters page should reflect only one point of view, and any that reflect reality (what was it that Stephen Colbert said about reality?) should be tossed immediately. You’re right … I should pattern the page more on Fox News and less on the First Amendment.
I have to get on that and start spiking all the letters I agree with … which would mean I might have two letters a day. Oh, wait a minute … you said I agree with the letters I print … I was not aware of that. Thanks for seeing that and pointing it out; clearly I need some sort of therapy to figure out just who I am.
As for facts, let’s see what Webster’s has to say: ” the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>; something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact>; an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>.” But if you say that facts are whatever things have been said by intellectuals such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and others of their ilk, regardless of how many times those facts have been shown not to be so factual, you must be right.
So thank you, Disgruntled, for pointing out how, by following the tenets of journalism that emphasize objectivity, I’ve been completely wrong. I’m ready for my punishment now.
Sincerely, A Chastened Liberal (at least I guess I am … if you say that’s who I am, you must be right.)
- Killing Obamacare Is Killing The Republican Party (thinkprogress.org)
- The Big Problem With Online Dating: It’s Making the Country More Politically Polarized (psmag.com)
- Seniors Turning Against Repugs? (seniorsforademocraticsociety.wordpress.com)
- Disgruntled Republican Sues GOP For $50 Or 90 Million, A Law School Education, A Secure ‘Boarder’ And A Meeting With Meghan McCain (wonkette.com)