Letters to the Editor
Jim White
Published Letters: 1094 Editor's Choice: 15
-
Not even close
[Read the article: Nepotistic tough guys and their coddling parents]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Look, there’s nepotism/cronyism on both sides but it seems that the Dems/”liberals” deride such things more so than the NeoCons or even most true conservatives. So in that respect they are at least equally hypocritical.
--Hankest
You missed the point entirely. Glenn actually is highlighting this point in the post:
Their whole movement is based on endless sermons about warrior virtues, self-reliance, toughness, courage and the like -- and yet a huge bulk of them, and virtually all of the most influential ones, never leave the safe and protective sides of their moms and dads.
Glenn is pointing out that the most outrageous of the warpervs are in positions given to them by their parents where they can hype their tough status without ever having to do any work on their own or be exposed to any actual danger.
Of course, this is not universal. Ron Reagan and Patti Davis did not grow up to join the pants-wetters. Probably the only operative in this arena I can think of who spent any time in the military is Eric Prince. That probably makes him even more dangerous to the world. For a person who has served as a Navy Seal to come back and then use his family fortune to maneuver himself into the leading proponent/recipient of the privatization of warfare suggests to me that his sense of morality never developed.
Exceptions aside, Glenn's point remains. A remarkable number of the biggest proponents of using irrational fear to drive amoral war are doing so as second generation "pundits" who are able to do so from secure enclaves provided by Daddy. I would contrast that position with Jim Webb conducting his Senate campaign while wearing the combat boots of his son. That's right: a man who served bravely in combat in Vietnam, then was Secretary of the Navy and raised his son to serve his country in combat conducts his campaign for Senate so that he can end the war while wearing that son's boots. I haven't heard any political views from the younger Webb, but I doubt he will be an Eric Prince.
-
Remove the "NBC News" designation from Today and Dateline
[Read the article: Playing softball with Larry Craig]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yesterday, Thom Hartmann had Howard Kurtz on his show for a long discussion. Hartmann made the point that NBC, if it wants any credibility at all for journalism, should remove the "NBC News" designation from the mastheads of the Today Show and Dateline. This interview serves as Exhibit A in such an argument. Absolutely disgusting. Does anyone know how GE has benefited directly from Craig's time in the Senate? Probably worth looking into this question.
-
Mukasey punts...
[Read the article: Live-blogging the Mukasey confirmation hearing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]and Bush scores!
No more habeas corpus, because Arlen Spector doesn't want to use more than his allotted time.
Gag.
-
sysprog
[Read the article: Live-blogging the Mukasey confirmation hearing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Here's a link to video of Bush's statement you just cited. Anybody else think he's starting to slur his speech more?
Is this alcohol or Lyme disease?
http://tinyurl.com/35ggct
-
Too little, too late
[Read the article: The truth about telecom amnesty]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Froomkin's column today pointed out an article by Ellen Nakashima and Paul Kane in WaPo that reveals that the White House yesterday begrudgingly made some surveillance program documents available to the Senate Intelligence Committee members and staff:
The White House agreed yesterday to give Senate intelligence committee members and staff access to internal documents related to its domestic surveillance program in a bid to win Democratic lawmakers' support for the administration's version of an intelligence measure.
The move was meant in part to defuse a months-long clash between Congress and the Bush administration over access to legal memoranda and presidential decisions underpinning the Terrorist Surveillance Program, which allowed the government to eavesdrop without court warrants on communications between people in the United States and abroad when one of the parties is a terrorism-related suspect.
[...]
Committee member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who also sits on the Judiciary panel, said however that when one of her staff members reviewed the documents, "he wasn't impressed." She added that she was unsure whether the documents the staff member saw were exactly what Leahy was seeking.
If even Feinstein believes the documents aren't responsive to the request, this must have been a pitiful effort indeed.
Is the House vote taking place yet? The article said it should be today.
-
Thanks, bystander
[Read the article: The truth about telecom amnesty]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That was helpful. With everything going on today, it was hard to keep up. At least the version that is up to be voted on doesn't have retroactive immunity.
-
FOX and their typos
[Read the article: The truth about telecom amnesty]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]bystander,
Following up on the vote delay, I found a Faux News article that just sums them up entirely. I suspect that tying "deceit" to democrats was intentional, but they are simply illiterate here. A close reading suggests that this is an inspired typo worthy of those Timberman finds:
Returning the legislation for committee review would take about nine days and for all intensive purposes would be a deceit for democrats who had planned to pass the bill Wednesday.
Link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,302944,00.html
Yes, I agree that the "intensive purposes" of the republicans in maneuvering to send the bill back to committee was a "deceit" to the Democrats perpetrated by the republicans.