Letters to the Editor
GeeJay
Published Letters: 117 Editor's Choice: 19
-
Further comments of the President
[Read the article: Bush and Musharraf's grand illusion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In the article, President Bush insists that the general is "a strong fighter" in the war on terror. Typical of President Bush’s diction, and later corrected by the White House press secretary, what he meant to say was that the general is a strong fighter in the war “of” terror. Later this was corrected again to the earlier version.
Also of note was President Bush’s statement during Saturday’s radio address, that he does “favor the tort reform going on in Pakistan, putting all the dissenting lawyers and judges in jail. That’s judicial activism I applaud.” Later in the day the White House press office denied that the president said such a thing. It blamed the misunderstanding on liberal microphones and liberal radio waves.
Finally, during Monday’s morning press briefing, the press secretary stated that the President’s comment overheard when the microphones were thought to be turned off during Saturday’s radio address was not the President speaking but a technician being very rude. The comment came after an aide asked the President, “What should Condi expect in Pakistan?” with the President answering, “If it was me, I’d be white on Rice.”
-
Surprising article
[Read the article: The Internet is making us stupid]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It was a surprising article, so light weight in nature. Perhaps Cass Sunstein's book is intended for first year college students. I was disappointed that he did not mention the correlation of the internet with the proliferation of newspapers a century ago. Then, because newspapers were so abundant, most newspapers adhered to a strident political ideology to make them unique, as web sites do today. Most newspapers catered to a niche market since it was the only market available for a newly formed business; they could be guaranteed a starting income. Eventually, to become more profitable the newspapers had to appeal to a larger audience, thus their political views had to become less stringent and more encompassing. Will this happen with the internet?
Mr. Sunstein should have mentioned President Lincoln’s cabinet when mentioning U.S. presidents who have had a diversity of views surrounding them. Mr. Lincoln brought in people who ran against him, from both major parties, into his cabinet.
The comment that Mr. Sunstein thought George Bush could be a very good president needs to be substantiated by Mr. Sunstein. My analysis of George Bush before his 2000 election victory showed he was not well educated, bailed out of several failing businesses, not caring about people outside of his social class, vastly inexperienced in governmental matters (role of Texas governor is somewhat unique in its lack of power), a pawn of powerful oil interests within and without this country, skilled at lying to the public, and completely ignorant of what was awaiting him. Along with that, he was a confessed heavy partier and drinker up to the age of 40, so he had a lot of catching up to acquire the skills and fortitude to run a country of 300 million people. Stopping there, I saw no indication that he could be a very good president, rather he looked like a disaster in the making.
-
Dino-sores
[Read the article: Welcome to the 700 Club, Rudy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A façade supporting a caricature. Or is it the other way around?
Amazingly both of these archaic personalities are still relevant. A year from now Giuliani will be ridiculed for still bringing up 9/11 in every conversation. Today Pat Robertson is ridiculed for being Pat Robertson. The photo displayed with the article depicts the state of the Republican Party today, though we would really like to see the Dorian Gray portraits hidden in the subject’s closets.
-
Judicial Activism and the Republi-cons approach.
[Read the article: Bush's old world disorder]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The demonization of the term “judicial activism” by the neocons and republicans is a textbook example of how to propagandize a measure that is used by the demonizer. By doing so, the demonizer blinds the public of the use of the measure for its own benefit, while trying to prohibit others from using it.
The best example of judicial activism in this century was the Supreme Court's ruling on the 2000 presidential election. This ruling could easily be construed as a court superseding existing constitutional law. Meanwhile, the Bush administration constantly uses the judiciary to reinterpret existing law, thus using judicial activism.
A classic example of how to propagandize a term is the term “class warfare” used by the Republicans. I am sure that in Republican strategy sessions, when the excessive tax cuts were proposed, someone mentioned that this could be considered as class warfare, benefitting only the rich. It was agreed that could be the case. So rather than rectify the situation, it was decided to launch a first strike. They demonized any opponents of the tax cuts as being only interested in class warfare, which now meant punishing the rich. Thus the term or concept of "class warfare" could not be used against the Republicans.
The lesson is, identify what you are going to do and then claim the other party is the one doing it.