Letters to the Editor
Silenced
Published Letters: 1359 Editor's Choice: 75
-
So how would people here vote?
[Read the article: When is a military dictator a freedom fighter?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Suppose there was an election in Pakistan tomorrow and by some miracle people here could vote based on the impact each candidate had on national security. Suppose the only two candidates were Musharraf and Bhutto.
Would you choose:
a) the military dictator/technocrat who appeared to much applause and glad-handing from American progressives while promoting his book on Jon Stewart who is now suddenly "widely reviled" by the people who applauded him and thought he was cool before, the dictator who accepts huge amounts of our money but who has yet to uproot the Taliban from the Afghan-Pakistan border or keep them from reaching into Afghanistan and killing our troops
or
b) the upper class Harvard graduate who was convicted of money laundering by a Swiss court and has publicly admitted that it was she who originally decided to empower the Taliban to take over Afghanistan because she hoped it would "stabilize" the country -- the same woman who currently flip flops between demanding that Musharraf step down and offering to share power with him in his dictatorship
Of course it should be the people of Pakistan who make this choice. Shame on Musharraf for not letting them.
But I don't see why we have to turn Pakistan politics into a projection of American politics and make Musharraf synonymous with "Bush."
That almost makes it sound like the Democrats are lined up behind Bhutto.
But let's look at Bhutto's record. Money laundering and recognizing the Taliban. And making very loud promises about improving women's rights that were never actually fulfilled.
And what kind of concern did Benazir Bhutto show for the rights of women when she decided to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan?
Both of theses characters are pretty disappointing. There's no reason why Americans should be impressed with either one of them or feel like either one of them is going to solve all of our problems in that region.
Bhutto helped cause them, Musharraf failed to solve them.
It should be the Pakistani people who make this choice. But if it were up to me, I would not know which one of their sorry asses to pick.
You see -- the world isn't a simple place. Black is not white and white is not black -- but grey does exist.
It's a color children have to learn to see as they grow up.
-
Honest heartfelt question here
[Read the article: I Like to Watch]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You glorify this sensationalistic show where the writers are chasing lurid character flaws and forcing bad decisions that lead to violence and mass trauma.
At the same time, with all of Salon's supposed concern for democracy and an open society, you are religiously excluding from Salon's pages the factual political and scientific aspects of the marijuana issue.
For example -- this little revelation we received from scientists last week that the ingredient in marijuana that makes you sleepy has the power to STOP BREAST CANCER FROM METASTASIZING.
Why is that scientific discovery not amazing or important enough to talk about in Salon?
But Nancy Botwin's butt tattoo is?
You know -- Fox News covered that story. Not Nancy Botwin's butt tattoo, but the fact that the active ingredients of marijuana appear to have some extremely amazing anti-cancer powers.
Not only do cannabinoids kill breast cancer cells, they also appear to switch off the gene that enables the cells to metastasize.
That's pretty f*cking amazing! There is no cancer drug out there designed by Big Pharm that can do both of those things at once.
And cannabinoids can do that without poisoning the rest of your body.
There should be fireworks after such a discovery!!!
A goddamned WEED can shut off the gene that makes breast cancer cells metastasize. Humans haven't been able to make a drug to do that, but somehow Nature did it with marijuana.
Fox News can cover that story but you people can't do it?
Score one for Rupert Murdoch. The loser here is definitely Joan Walsh.
Her consolation prize can be Nancy Botwin's butt.
-
I think you are very much out of touch dude, sorry
[Read the article: Is race dying? ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If you're seriously arguing that race is dying as an issue in America -- then I invite you to go to one of California's racially segregated prisons.
You can make this same argument to the leaders of Aryan Brotherhood gang whom the California state prison guards have decided to place in charge of all the white prisoners in the white section of the prison.
Or you can make the argument to one of the Bloods or Crips who supervise the black prisoners in the black section of the prison.
The Latino gangs don't talk to the press, so you won't get much out of them.
But you could probably get one of them to tell you what happens to a prisoner when he steps across racial lines and says something friendly to a prisoner of another race.
It's not pretty.
After you've visited our racially segregated prisons, then you should pay a visit to the US Attorney in Los Angeles, who is currently prosecuting a very large hate crime case involving racially separatist Latino gang members who tried to "ethnically cleanse" an East LA neighborhood of all blacks.
Why are Latino gangs trying to ethnically cleanse East LA of blacks?
Because that's how they live in prison. They're made to live that way in prison, and then they come out and expect to live that way outside of prison too.
How can anyone possibly say that race is becoming irrelevant when these kinds of things are happening?
Getting out of our racial mess?
You really must be kidding.
When we have racially segregated prisons, and there is ethnic cleansing in Los Angeles, I don't think we're getting "out" of any mess.
In fact I think we're heading towards the real mess, not away from it.
People like you, Gary, just haven't realized it yet.