Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 16 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Mr. Keillor, are all Midwesterners Heterosexual Men?
[Read the article: Good weather, bad behavior]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In the sub-title to your recent article, "Good weather, bad behavior," you stated:
"When even we uptight Midwesterners feel the urge to skip town with a cocktail waitress named Amber, it must be springtime."
Congratulations -- you have just made a classic writing blunder. In the process you have made public what your unconcious mind probably always held -- that the normative person (or in this case more precisely the normative Midwesterner) is a male heterosexual. Because you are yourself a straight guy, you unconsciously write for an audience of straight guys.
I've been a fan of your for many years and own (and have actually read and enjoyed) probably half a dozen of your books. I would guess that if you look over your essays over the years you wouldn't have to look very hard to find plenty of other examples of implicitly making straight males normative.
Think about it. :)
-- Joel Bloom
Eugene, Oregon
-
A cloture vote is (almost) as good
[Read the article: The sense of the Senate]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]as a real vote in a non-binding resolution. The point is, all Harry Reid has to do is announce before the cloture vote something like this:
The honorable Senator from the Great State of Kentucky has chosen to block the vote on our bi-partisan, non-binding resolution opposing the President's misguided escalation of the Iraq War, as is his right under Senate rules. I will tell you honestly that we do not have the sixty votes necessary to end debate and force a vote. That means that this cloture vote is your one chance to go on record about Bush's escalation. If you vote for cloture, that means you oppose Bush's escalation. If you vote against cloture that means you are for it. Since this is a non-binding resolution, we achieve the aim of letting the President, The American People, and the whole world know that this is the sense of the Senate just as well in a cloture vote as we do in a floor vote. Let God and history be our judge. Now do I hear a motion for a vote to end debate?
That would pretty much do it, wouldn't it? Obviously even a nonbinding resolution has more standing than a cloture vote that "fails" by getting, say, 57 votes, but in terms of taking a stand for political and moral reasons, this gets us about 95% of the way there in my opinion. Any other thoughts on this?
-- Joel
-
Good Grief!
[Read the article: The unresolved story of ABC News' false Saddam-anthrax reports]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So it was Cheney who attacked Senate Democrats with Anthrax!!! Given his well-documented history with the substance, it stretches credulity to imagine it could have been anyone else! ;)
-
Watergate
[Read the article: Who is Fred Thompson?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Amazingly, the article neglected to mention that Thompson passed information to the Nixon White House during the Watergate hearings with the full expectation that they would destroy the tapes.
-
two words: recess appointments
[Read the article: The Democrats' responsibility in the wake of Gonzales' resignation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn, you're right of course, except that you somehow underestimate how dishonorable Bush and his people are.
You are relying on Bush to keep his word to Harry Reid that he would make no recess appointments, a promise he made in response to Reid's threat to keep the Senate nominally in session during the August recess.
I always had the feeling that Gonzales would resign during the August recess and be replaced by a recess appointment, but I too was sucked into a false set of security by the Bush/Reid deal.
It was a trick. Bush will use recess appointments to appoint Chertoff Attorney-General and will appoint another member of his inner circle Secretary of Homeland Security, possibly announcing the appointments at today's press conference.
He'll offer two excuses for his treachery:
1) He actually only promised Reid that he wouldn't fill any EXISTING vacancies by recess appointments; since these are new, "unexpected" vacancies, they are not covered in the agreement.
2) He really truly meant to honor the agreement, but we can't have a long gap in filling a position so crucial to America's national security. Having a long vacancy in the Attorney General's office would send our enemies the wrong message about American strength and resolve.
Do you doubt for a minute that he would do it?
I hope I'm wrong, but is there anything in the last six years that makes you think he wouldn't?
-
Your count is off by one (f***ing Lieberman)
[Read the article: Are Democrats planning still worse FISA capitulations?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn,
The actual vote is 56-43, with one no-vote (Chambliss). Joe Lieberman actually voted "nay". (I'm going to zip it now because I don't have time for a diatribe.)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00340
-
Can't Agree with You on This One
[Read the article: Taser nation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Joe,
I've been a fan of yours for years and I make a point of reading every word you write, so it's in that context that I'll say I think you're just wrong on this one.
(I just finished reading It Can't Happen Here and only wish it had received the attention it deserved.)
Not wrong on the authoritarian means Bush/Rove/Cheney have used over the years to stifle dissent at public events -- you're absolutely right about that.
But I do, respectfully, disagree with you about this particular incident. We've all seen the video. This guy was either completely deranged or -- if he was rational -- out on a mission to get get some attention for himself by any means necessary. He went on and on without asking a question; when asked to wrap it up, he refused; when his mike was cut off he became belligerent; he was screaming and waving his arms around; he didn't leave when asked to; he struggled violently with the security officers while continuing to scream loudly. I don't know whether he was deranged or simply out to get publicity; I suspect the latter, but that's irrelevant. (My visceral reaction at seeing this guy's antics was "what an a**hole!) The point is, he was absolutely out of control and his actions would have gotten him forcibly removed from public events anywhere in the U.S. or even in democracies that haven't been ruled by authoritarians for the last six years.
In short, this is just one of those cases. I don't see any broader significance.