Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 12 Editor's Choice: 2
-
changing salon
[Read the article: Salon gets (more) interactive]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree with others who appreciate Salon for its unique approach to news we can't find clearly analyzed elsewhere. I hope it will continue this good work. I'm not sure what demographics you're looking for, but I'm middle-class, white, married, taxpayer who drives a gas guzzler; in short, probably mainstream.
-
Hastlin Hastert
[Read the article: Highway robbery]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well, having been pretty jaded about American politics this story has actually made me consider running for Congress. Out here in the real world it's pretty tough to get by, but inside Congress info can be turned into profit so easily. I've often wondered how thoses guys come out of government smelling like expensive roses based on their Congressional pay. So the lesson seems to be, don't fight em- join em if you want to make some money in America. But sadly, Hastert is only a novice, apparently. If he had disclosed honestly in the beginning his holdings, would the road have passed? Of course, only those folks stuck in traffic around Chicago or Aurora can really appreciate it, but this is indeed small potatoes compared to the deals real professionals like Cheney, the Bushes, Lyndon Johnson, and even Richard Meyers, now comfortably ensconced on the Board at Northrop -Grumman, have struck. But that's life, aint it? If you (or I) are so smart how come we aren't in politics?
The down side here may be that hastling Hastert could be counter-productive in that he may be someone who might break a little from the Rove-message and actually show some independent spine. I doubt it, despite some clear-headed comments he has made recently about the war, but the spotlight on his real estate deals might be a good thing. Fear of rejection or indictment, that constant fear so many Republicans are facing, could tend to make him more honest and accountable. We'll see.
David Neal
-
Hastlin Hastert again
[Read the article: Highway robbery]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I wrote earlier, in a spirit of conciliation, that since the insider wheeling and dealing of the Bushes, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Lyndon Johnson, etc, was so much greater than the one in which Hastert has so clumsily left his fingerprints, that we ought to go easy on him because he might be less a Rovchurian candidate, especially about Iraq. But, my bad. I did a google and can find no reason in his speeches to suggest he is clear-headed about the war. Sorry.
-
Excellent letters
[Read the article: The 9/11 deniers]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Quite a response to this article- obviously not a dead subject- and not a case closed despite the very good synopsis in the last letter posted. The logic is strong that the reality of an acre of concrete and steel falling from the top would tend to pulverize what's below it. This theory needs to be tested in light of the whistleblowers who have questioned NIST's conclusions. The free-fall of buildings 1 and 2 do seem a little too quick to our common sense point of view. But building 7's fall as so many others have mentioned, is a red-flag that begs so many other questions. Without getting into the quagmire of who did it and why, it is clear this building was pulled, meaning purposely taken down. The owner has denied that he meant the building was taken down on purpose some seven hours after the first two although it seems clear that is what he said on a PBS documentary. The theory that building 7 came down because of fires at the bottom is the opposite of what is claimed about the other two buidlings, which fell because of failure at the top. Yet all three appear to free fall as if being purposely destroyed. The real examination should focus on this discrepancy and ask if building 7 can be demolished so expertly and completely within hours of the tragic crashes, couldn't the other two have been rigged to fall as well? Let us concentrate on the science and evidence first, and then address who might have been responsible. Some things are what they appear to be.
Sincerely, David Neal
-
Lincoln and Rumsfeld
[Read the article: You, sir, are no Abe Lincoln]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Someone said Lincoln would have fired Rumsfeld a long time ago. Wrong. Lincoln would not have attacked Canada or any other foreign sovereign country in order to further the interests of a right wing fringe group only interested in Wacko American hegemonic theories or personal gain. Wait a minute, I'm a southerner...Humm, Anyway, he would not have had to fire Rumsfeld. This is not to say Johnson, I mean Bush, shouldn't fire him.
-
imus
[Read the article: No more whining excuses]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think since Imus was so outspoken about the war that the Als and Jesses may have shot themselves in the foot-they and we needed his speaking truth to power.
-
World Trade Center 7
[Read the article: A new low for Giuliani]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am not sure why people are confusing the issue about where Guiliani's Command Center was- Paul Begala also implied the same thing- that it was in WTC 1, since that is the building that was attacked in 1993. The Command Center was in wtc 7, the third building that fell on September 11. It was a 47 story high rise that collapsed into itself around 5:20 pm after police and EMT people had cleared the area for five blocks. It of course was not hit by a plane and the questions are quite a bit more serious and provoking concerning Guiliani and many other people about their activities, lack of clear answers and especially complete avoidance of honest discussion about this-
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/wtc7.html
Sincerely, David Neal