Letters to the Editor
KateTex
Published Letters: 615 Editor's Choice: 4
-
How about
[Read the article: The Democrats' anti-momentum]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Democrats present a full slate of candidates who are thoroughly vetted re background, voting history, associations, words, actions, platforms, possible contradictions, baggage real and imagined, and THEN everybody votes simultaneously in all 50 states - on the same day as the Republicans. Everybody receives an equal budget from a DNC fund for strictly noncommercial use (e.g., no ads with red phones, rippling flags, or bared fangs). A series of debates takes place with moderators chosen for their neutrality and aversion to witch hunts and dogfights. And MSM analysis is confined to an obscure cable channel that virtually nobody can find.
-
@Margalis
[Read the article: One of Instapundit's favorite blogs speaks on race]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You say: "If you want to write about how black people are terrible niggers because they are violent savages then write that."
I have absolutely no desire to portray blacks as a monolithic bloc in any way. But it appears that you do.
-
@reality-based
[Read the article: The Democrats' anti-momentum]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You say: "This is really a crazy notion for a democracy: "Let some elite body pre-screen our candidates for us!" I thought that's what sucks about the current system."
An elite body is hardly appealing and I certainly didn't mean to imply that such a body would do any screening. How to devise some sort of honor system by which candidates present the sort of information voters need to know in order to make the most informed decision possible - including the possibility of any possible deal breakers? Oh, democracy - so damned messy and vexing.
-
@loper
[Read the article: The Democrats' anti-momentum]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You say: "Obama has weaknesses for sure, but he is the only candidate with credibility on criticizing this war before it began. He is also still perceived as more honest and authentic than HRC, so he will be able to compete in this way."
Obama will be absolutely killed by the Wright business in the general - what makes you think he won't be? Even for many predisposed to like him, this has been a deal breaker. As far as his 'criticizing this war before it began': any criticisms were made from the safety of his pre-Senate days in Illinois and he is on record as saying that he does NOT know how he might have voted had he been in the Senate at the time. So how does this give him the credibility you mention?
Honest? Authentic? When, oh, when will Obama supporters recognize that their candidate is on record as having either lied or purposely obfuscated matters - not small matters - on a number of occasions?
-
@NWwoods
[Read the article: One of Instapundit's favorite blogs speaks on race]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The link to the study re liberal vs. conservative attributes has this to say: "While liberals prize the ability to look at all sides of an issue...."
Obviously, this study concluded prior to primary season 2008.
-
@Acanthus
[Read the article: One of Instapundit's favorite blogs speaks on race]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You say: "By the way, the "acting white" thing, while it happens, is very overblown, and is one of the fave tropes of people like "old punk"."
Sorry, but you're dead wrong on this one - it happened a great deal in New Orleans to the deep dismay of many public school teachers and to the enormous detriment of thousands of black kids who might well have been able to pull themselves up and out of poverty and thus escape a probable future in prison.
Besides, have you already conveniently forgotten the "not black enough" judgment rendered on Obama - before SC? Gosh, where did that one come from? Another fave trope?
It's pretty apparent that very few posters on this site have any real world knowledge of black life in America, other than those who actually are black. It's also pretty apparent that those who have the least knowledge are the quickest to hand out the most scathing judgments on matters racial.
-
More b.s. from Acanthus
[Read the article: One of Instapundit's favorite blogs speaks on race]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"More insidiously, the authors say, the idea that failing black kids pull down successful black kids can be used as an excuse by administrators to conceal or justify discrimination in the public-education system."
This is complete and unadulterated b.s. How would the "authors" explain Orleans Parish public schools, which had something like 95% black enrollment for years and years before Katrina? The school board was almost entirely black, as was the administration, and faculty and staff were also predominantly black. Spending per pupil was well above the national average, yet the schools were notorious failures, little better than chaotic warehouses rife with danger. Most kids advanced through their grades thanks to social promotions. At the same time, at least forty percent of Orleans Parish adults remained functionally illiterate (the vast majority of them black) - how many years after Brown vs. Board of Education? So, the question here is: who was concealing or justifying discrimination on the part of whom for what purpose?