Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 361 Editor's Choice: 12
-
On the record
[Read the article: Time magazine refused to publish responses to Klein's false smears]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So the Democratic authors of the bill were willing to speak on the record, from the outset, and their comments, on the record, were not considered to be germane to Klein's column or to the Swampland post.
This can't be written off to "balance." And there is no need for Klein to talk about his secret sources when he has knowledgeable sources on the record.
In general, the use of anonymous sources is frustrating. But in this case, it served to further distort the truth--by letting Hoekstra speak with Klein's voice.
And you know what Klein's response will be? He'll write some blog posts critical of republicans on swampland. The NIE release comes at a perfect time.
-
Yes the number is higher
[Read the article: Time magazine refused to publish responses to Klein's false smears]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It seems silly to confirm sending a letter to some other place.
And if the letters appear coordinated, they'll be dismissed as astroturf.
It's an interesting problem; people, in large numbers, hundreds at least, thousands probably are appalled by this.
Does that matter to Richard Stengel?
Accuracy certainly doesn't seem to.
-
shooter
[Read the article: Time magazine refused to publish responses to Klein's false smears]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That's one of the issues in the bill.
If one of the people in a conversation is an American, the name is redacted. If there is reason to think that the American is involved in something illegal, then a warrant must be obtained to target the American. At that point, calls initiated as well as received would be tracked.
-
@bystander re: Glenzilla and re: Lakoff
[Read the article: Time magazine refused to publish responses to Klein's false smears]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I believe TRex is the Glenzilla coiner.
If he isn't, he should be.
George Lakoff fans:
I'll be talking to George Lakoff in Second Life on the 3rd of January. More info here: http://www.inworldstudios.comv/vs.
And a bonus--there's an interview with GG up there as well.
-
Of course not
[Read the article: "Missing" evidence is familiar Bush pattern]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Forgive me for thinking more like a mathematician than a lawyer, but this isn't a statement of neanderthal behavior, or of incompetence, it is a reductio ad absurdum proof that the Bush administration does not have the intention of bringing these detainees before a legitimate court of law -- ever.
Of course not. This has never been about actually getting information or obtaining convictions. This is simply using naked force to intimidate people. The torture techniques they are not methods used to elicit true facts. They are techniques designed to elicit false confessions--and to cow other people into submission. ("See what will happen to YOU.") Stalinism, pure and simple. The morality of the Inquisition.
BTW, did you know that under the Inquistion, kids were taken from their parents by the authorities. The ability to baptize is conferred on all Christians. Some caretakers of Jewish babies would baptize them for their safety in the afterlife. If, for some reason, the caretaker told someone in the local government that she had done this, the state would take the child away.
That's the kind of people we are talking about here.
-
Grating
[Read the article: Romney: "Freedom requires religion" ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm getting kinda tired of the ritual dismissal of Dawkins and Hitchens. Dawkins is not grating at all. He's extremely straightforward.
What he is not grating, but rude. It is rude to ask people questions about what they believe. It is rude to point out that there is something deeply messed up when a creationist drives to a revival meeting in a fossil-fueled vehicle.
It's not polite to ask people whether they really believe in a Virgin Birth, impregnation by a deity and fully human, fully omnipotent God made of the same stuff. it's impolite to point out that it subject any of these wacky beliefs to any kind of reasonable scrutiny, you're left with a stuttering response.
I'd find this more tolerable if these people were not themselves so intolerant. Leave aside the way they treat atheists. Look at the way they treat Wiccans. They launch campaigns to ban books that don't follow their lines. They attack people who make movies that challenge their authority. And don't even get me started on Muslims.
Take Romney for an example there. His rejection of the Consitution's basic precept of no religious tests is out for all to see, when he says he'll appoint him no Muslims.
Someone should ask how he plans to weed out the secularists. Who is he going to put in charge of the CDC, of the NSF?
But it's Dawkins who is grating.
-
GG on target
[Read the article: Democratic complicity in Bush's torture regimen]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is remarkable, although not surprising, vindication for Glenn's position on the Democratic leadership role in the illegal and, frankly, evil behavior of this administration.
Also, as EmptyWheel says here, that complicity now extends to all of us. These are the people we elected--and these are the people we still have not held accountable.
-
preview dammit
[Read the article: Democratic complicity in Bush's torture regimen]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Missing Link
Re the comment right after mine, yes of course they are dragging the Democrats who approved of this into it. Of course, they are going to use the fact that they went through the oversight process before proceeding. They're perfectly justified in doing so.
And, re: your sourcing remarks, read the article. Pelosi's office does not deny that she was briefed, and did not object.