Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 120 Editor's Choice: 5
-
Bucks4McCain, Remember Reagan?
[Read the article: What Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and Fred Hiatt mean by "bipartisanship"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If we're going to vote these people into office to represent and protect us, then at some point you need to trust them enough to actually do it.
Do you remember Reagan's mantra about "trust but verify"? You seem quite willing to trust the government to do the right thing. The past has clearly shown that when people in power get access to this kind of information, the temptation to use it to secure and expand their own power is irresistible. Secondly, you seem to assume that the information that's been collected to date has both been a) used to protect us, and b) not used for nefarious purposes.
If your assumptions were correct, why is the government so furiously blocking all efforts to verify these assumptions? It gets to the threshold issue which is, if the government's need for this information is compelling, why can't it convince the ever-compliant FISA court of that?
-
Bucks4McCain, Quick fact-check for you...
[Read the article: What Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and Fred Hiatt mean by "bipartisanship"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It was actually talked about quite a bit on CNN that we couldn't stack up to Iraq's Army
Ummm, actually, no. This is simply false. Perhaps you can do some research on CNN's own site, where they have a links to a special they did that features some samples of their own coverage. I don't think many voices on air said that "we couldn't stack up to Iraq's Army." You might want to check it out...
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/
Also, thanks for what I take to be your service to our nation. I am grateful for your contribution.
-
Been Burned Before
[Read the article: The New Republic syndrome]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Two quick points...
1. There's an underlying dynamic that hasn't really been touched upon, and it's the Lewinsky scandal. Republicans have, in one form or another, been running around warning darkly of dangers, from the supposed designs of John Adams on creating an American monarchy to the latest version of the Iranian evil-doers. They ran around Washington DC during Clinton's term darkly warning that Bill Clinton was an evildoer of the first order. At first they were dismissed as unserious, but thanks to the likes of Bob Barr they kept at it until they got an investigation (which had the desired effect of hobbling the Democrats -it's a technique we'll see again soon enough!).
The Big Thing that happened was that for once the Republicans were proven to be correct when it came to the President's perfidy. It was denied, it was pooh-poohed, but in the end, the whole world watched in horror as the President himself admitted that he in fact had been dupicitous. The Republicans knew that had gained a ton of credibility.
I think it was that reservoir of credibility which helped shut the media up. (I also think the Republicans' tactic of yelling and screaming hysterically whenever the media misbehaves contributes, as does the corporatization of the media, which leads to hiring "journalists" whose main qualification is that they are telegenic). Many of the Democratic leaders of today remember that feeling of being burned by events, and remain quite terrified of it happening again. (Though I don't think this explains BHO's capitulation, which I still don't fully understand.)
The lesson of the Iraq War is taking hold -- look at all our newer and better Democrats. The future is bright because of these future leaders. (As is the future of journalism -- is there anyone here who thinks that Glenn won't come to define the "mainstream" before too long?) But there's some history here that provides some helpful context.
2. Is the video the real video? Is the Reverend running for something? All the images seem to be of him doing heroic things. I would have thought there'd be some shots of illegal wiretapping, GWB, etc...
-
Parachuting In At The End
[Read the article: Who's afraid of Michelle Obama?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I read through Ms. Kaplan's work because of the subhead, "as far as I'm concerned, I've found a kindred spirit." That captured perfectly how a feel about Michelle Obama.
But the article itself left me cold. Pure identity politics, as far as I can tell. Ms. Kaplan sees in Ms. Obama a person with similar background, race, gender, etc.
The entire point, it seems to me, that the Obama campaign has made regarding race is that for a majority of Americans race is not the central issue. A whole of lot of non-black Democrats looked at Obama and thought, "Hey, this guy is somehow larger than race. Yes, race is a central part of our American story, but we cannot let that focus keep us from focusing on other issues." Indeed, many of these non-white Democrats were -- gasp! -- women NOT VOTING FOR THE WOMAN CANDIDATE.
I am not part of an oppressed minority, and so lack life experiences that would help me understand what that is like. I can only listen and learn, which I am grateful to have the chance to do. But I can say, as an older white male with too much education, when I listen to Michelle Obama, I think I've found a kindred spirit.