Letters to the Editor
JackSparx
Published Letters: 421 Editor's Choice: 16
-
For all intents and purposes
[Read the article: Is Briana Waters a terrorist?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Joe INTENTIONALLY burns down Bill's house. Joe does it because:
a. Bill's house is built in a wetland.
b. Bill is sleeping with Joe's wife.
c. Bill is a total asshole.
d. Bill is black.
e. Bill is an Irish-Cajun-Cuban mix.
f. Bill's house blocks Joe's view.
g. Bill is a Republican.
h. Bill is a Democrat.
i. Bill is Joe's secret lover.
j. Joe is a pyromaniac.
k. Bill is an environmentalist, and Joe hates environmentalists.
Or combinations of the above, or a million more.
I can see how any of these motivations could provide one of the elements of the crime of arson by proving motive. They could convince the jury the fire was not an accident. But which of these motives should we choose to designate as crimes in themselves, and allow lower standards of proof, different investigative techniques, and longer jail sentences because of those intents?
So, the pyromaniac that was one of the ELFs should go a SHORTER sentence BECAUSE he was a pyromaniac and his real intent was not political? How does that make sense?
-
Universal discrimination
[Read the article: Is Briana Waters a terrorist?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"In what universe did that happen? I WISH that were true in this universe."
Muslim clerics pulled off flight from Minneapolis.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/us/01muslim.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
And that's just the first incident that came to mind.
Happier, now, fascist?
-
Roundup ready
[Read the article: Is Briana Waters a terrorist?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Now, can you think of a second rounding-up?"
Actually, this one was the first:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/23/nyregion/23detain.html
-
@cabdriver
[Read the article: Is Briana Waters a terrorist?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"But no one should expect that the counters be re-set to zero, simply because they share her political views on environmental issues."
You're distorting the federal government's argument, cabdriver. They are saying that environmental intent should ENHANCE the counters. To argue that the counters should not be enhanced is not to argue that the counters be re-set to zero, or that charges for the underlying crime be dropped.
-
A few modest demands
[Read the article: More on the "menaissance"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Affirmative action programs should be used only to the point of gender parity in the workplace, rather than simply for women's benefit in hiring or promotion. Management and administrative positions should be considered separately for affirmative action accounting.
Women and men in high positions should take the same responsibility for their decisions. Starting with Hillary Clinton on the war.
Women competing for jobs should be honest about their work experience. Starting with Hillary Clinton on Bosnia.
Men and women should be allowed the same range of behaviors and the same range of expectations in the workplace.
90% of the casualties in the next war should be female soldiers, not men.
As far as waxing and "masculinity," no man gives a shit.
-
The gravitas is gone
[Read the article: Hillary's team crosses the line]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Clintons have crossed a punchline into self-parody. The campaign faces the challenge of getting people to take them seriously again.
-
@AKA
[Read the article: Hillary's team crosses the line]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I actually don't think Obama, as the professed change agent, has been running so much on gravitas as competence and Kennedyesque vigor.
Clinton, who began as the experience candidate, projected the idea that she (they) were calm dignified and above the fray.
Their initial postures hurt Clinton more once she had to scrap and fight and change her message, while Obama could remain consistent (the consistency ironically giving him more appearance of gravitas). But I really think the Clintons damaged themselves.
Conason is concerned with the Clintons using "right-wing materials," and I do think the Clintons tactics would hurt them in the general if not the remaining primaries, and with the super delegates. Probably all three.
But, in terms of the public, I think Clinton was far more damaged by the comments on Bosnia. The jokes (many of them videos and quite funny) are becoming shorthand for her whole campaign effort. Yesterday I overheard no less than three conversations on that topic. I'm not sure how the Clintons come back and refocus on serious issues. The rekindling war is not a safe topic, bringing to mind both her vote and Bosnia. The economy is too dull, even if it is a number one issue (no one listens to any of the plans). Healthcare is double-edged for her.
She needs a real issue, fast.
-
Will Pennsylvania deliver the coup de grace?
[Read the article: Hillary's team crosses the line]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree that Obama has a shot at Pennsylvania, glad to hear I'm not the only delusional one, dataguy. But I think PA going for Obama depends on whether the credibility of Clinton's chances continue to erode. I think it will, much of the erosion depends on the math sinking through the media hype. People know democracy is ultimately about numbers of votes or delegates, not "themes" and "narratives."
Also, I think superdelegates will continue to announce for Obama, and that those endorsements will add to the math in people's calculations. Endorsements that finally do matter, because each one actually counts in terms of the delegate vote count.
I also think superdelegates going for Obama hurt the Clintons more than they help Obama, besides just the math. Supposedly, the Clintons had a rabbit they were about to pull out the hat to add to the Ohio win. I certinaly figured they must have some sort of deal. But a trick or deal seems less plausible now. They've stopped looking devious and gone straight to looking like cheap hucksters without a pause.
-
Be a reporter: get an interview with Chelsea Clinton
[Read the article: Meghan McCain is, like, totally a genius]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]McCain gets attention because she doesn't avoid the press. I think people would be interested in a real interview or more coverage of the more serious Chelsea Clinton.
Despite (or because) of the Clintons strong-arm censorship of the press on behalf of Chelsea, there has been a lot of fawning, if rather distant coverage of her (NY Times, I'm looking at you). I think that plays into a whole serious/bimbo (madonna/whore) dichotomy which probably isn't a balanced portrayal of either woman.
McCain has been covered enough and then some. Go get an interview with Chelsea. Or do a little friendly investigative reporting by interviewing her friends at least. Chelsea has chosen to be a public figure, too, and the media should quit differing to her parents just because Chelsea is their little girl.