Imagine my dismay. I am "irrelevant." I know this, because David Corn says so.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050929/...irrelevance.php
I do not know how he knows this. He implies that it isn't a personal insult. Of course, for me, the allegation is intensely personal, as well as smug, arrogant, elitist and offensive.
After all, Corn is a published author, a "Nation Magazine" editor, a familiar pundit whose face I see regularly on C-span, Hardball, Countdown. He has a column, people read what he writes. I am astonished to be told that I'm "irrelevant" in such a public way, and with such smug certainty.
I spent $500 of my own money, arranged travel, organized with others and went to Washington DC last Saturday where, alongside AT LEAST 300,000 people--who also spent their money and took their time to be there--I protested Bush's war and Bush's policies.
It was all for nothing, apparently. David Corn says so; and with calculated dismissive scorn, too. It was "irrelevant." According to Webster, David Corn thinks it "extraneous" and "impertinent."
Imagine that: David Corn thinks I'm "impertinent" because I believed that part of my constitutional rights--indeed responsibilities--was to "petition my government for redress of grievances."
I wonder even more about how Corn has measured my "irrelevance." Was it because I protested as part of the antiwar movement in October 2002 when it became clear to me that Bush was going to invade Iraq--but those protests didn't stop the war? Did Corn determine that I am "irrelevant" because even though we protested in October 2003, we didn't stop Bush's re-election?
It's surprising that such reasoning could invite Corn's contempt for my protest. After all, David Corn wrote a book about Bush's Lies and it didn't stop the war. Corn is invited to showcase his opinions on C-Span, and even he couldn't stop Bush's re-election. Corn is the Washington editor for "The Nation" magazine, informing the public about Bush. Yet, here we are 5 years on, suffering Bush's corruption, criminality and misery despite the Nation's best efforts, despite Corn's insufferable contempt for the rest of us.
Is it possible then that David Corn is also "irrelevant?" Corn didn't say, but he certainly was smug in his self-assurance that I am.
What did Corn offer as the alternative to my travels to DC last weekend? Corn didn't say. Corn doesn't provide a contact email either, so I'm banned from asking him.
Such smug contempt for my "irrelevance" combined with a rejection of "equal time" reminds me of someone.... Oh, right. Bush. The man I was in Washington DC to protest last weekend in a flagrant act of "irrelevance."
Like Corn, Bush has contempt for my relevance, too. Like David Corn, Bush thinks my voice should remain silent because it is "impertinent." Like Corn, Bush doesn't believe my presence in Washington DC was worth the effort. And, like Corn, Bush wasn't there to see me or hear me or the 300,000 other people who, like me, expressed our opinion in Washington DC last Saturday.
I take some comfort in knowing that I was in good company in my "irrelevance," since George Galloway, John Conyers, Cynthia McKinney, Cindy Sheehan, Gold Star Families, Military Families Speak Out, Joan Baez, Steve Earle, veterans from even WWII, Vietnam, Persian Gulf War, Korean War, and the Iraq War were there, as well, along with more than 300,000 other Americans--famous and not-so-famous--in Washington DC last Saturday. By what possible measure does Corn consider it "irrelevant" that we were there.
Would David Corn think it was "irrelevant" if 300,000 people sent letters to The Nation magazine and canceled their subscriptions? What if 300,000 people wrote David Corn an email telling him that he is "irrelevant?" Would his inbox crash from the overload, and would he think that is "irrelevant?" He doesn't say.
And, so we are all left wondering about the unfathomable attitude that when 300,000 Americans show up to express their opinion it is "irrelevant" but when ONE journalist says they don't count, it is worthwhile. Now, that's the height of arrogance.
I bought David Corn's book several years ago. I only made it through a third of the book--It was boring. I already knew everything that was in it. It was, by Corn's own measurement, irrelevant. He didn't stop the war; he didn't stop Bush's re-election. Despite the fact that he has criticized the antiwar movement since 2002, he didn't even stop 300,000 people from showing up last Saturday in Washington DC to protest Bush.
So, clearly, by David Corn's own measurements (1-vs-300,000) David Corn is the IRRELEVANT ONE.
http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/polit...4574/index.html