Letters to the Editor
sjohnsson
Published Letters: 6
-
Thomas Schelling...
[Read the article: The ongoing exclusion of war opponents from the Iraq debate]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think you should stress that one of the signatories of that ad is 2005 Nobel-prize winning economist Thomas Schelling from the University of Maryland. He (per umd.edu) “enhanced our understanding of conflict and cooperation through game-theory analysis". He ‘has published highly influential works in a number of areas including nuclear proliferation and arms control, terrorism… His work on nuclear deterrence helped shape Cold War strategies’. Can someone tell me how can someone get more qualified than him?
Here’s more.. http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu/sociss/release.cfm?ArticleID=1145
-
Glenn...
[Read the article: What can and cannot be spoken on television]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think you should stress that one of the signatories of that ad is 2005 Nobel-prize winning economist Thomas Schelling from the University of Maryland. He (per umd.edu) “enhanced our understanding of conflict and cooperation through game-theory analysis". He ‘has published highly influential works in a number of areas including nuclear proliferation and arms control, terrorism… His work on nuclear deterrence helped shape Cold War strategies’. Can someone tell me how can someone get more qualified than him?
Here’s more.. http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu/sociss/release.cfm?ArticleID=1145
-
Glenn...
[Read the article: Tactics of the right-wing noise machine]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]perhaps you can elaborate on the underlying principles involved when hyperlinking to another blog. For example: The purpose of his blog is to promote political viewpoints that he agrees with in an effort to inform/convince/persuade an audience. By explicitly linking to such an essay, he has consciously decided that he wishes to share the message from that essay with his audience. This (like Reynolds argues) doesn't necessarily imply that he supports the message, but it does imply that he felt the information pertinent enough to share with his audience. However, the only way he could truly argue that he meant no endorsement is if his blog was strictly unopinionated. Which it is not. Therefore, for Reynolds to relay a message such as this without refutation is an implicit 'soft' endorsement.
I imagine it would be akin to me standing on a soapbox beside the sidewalk. Then blasting a sermon of Fred Phelps from a boombox atop my head to all the passerbys... You can't know for certain if i endorse the message, but any rational person will sufficiently convinced absent a refutation.
-
....
[Read the article: Tactics of the right-wing noise machine]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]i think most of you assume that Glenn is some 'liberal/progressive' because he so often focuses his effort on the right wing demagogues. I must disagree. I'm about as conservative as they come and I fully support and appreciate Mr. Greenwald's reasoned posts. My belief is that Glenn's purpose is purely to eliminate the obstacles that prevent substantive debate in this country. I don't believe that he implicitly supports the messages of the 'liberal noise machines'.
-
Campaign for Liberty
[Read the article: Targeting Steny Hoyer for his contempt for the rule of law]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I hope you've contacted Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty. Within a few days, they already have over 60,000 signed up and we are a fiercely passionate constituency with deep pockets. I don't think they would shy away from this fight
-
Ron Paul's Speech Against FISA Bill...
[Read the article: Chris Dodd's speech and a glimmer of hope for stopping the FISA bill]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Statement on HR 6304, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments before the US House of Representatives, June 20, 2008:
Mr. Speaker, I regret that due to the unexpected last-minute appearance of this measure on the legislative calendar this week, a prior commitment has prevented me from voting on the FISA amendments. I have strongly opposed every previous FISA overhaul attempt and I certainly would have voted against this one as well.
The main reason I oppose this latest version is that it still clearly violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution by allowing the federal government to engage in the bulk collection of American citizens’ communications without a search warrant. That US citizens can have their private communication intercepted by the government without a search warrant is anti-American, deeply disturbing, and completely unacceptable.
In addition to gutting the fourth amendment, this measure will deprive Americans who have had their rights violated by telecommunication companies involved in the Administration’s illegal wiretapping program the right to seek redress in the courts for the wrongs committed against them. Worse, this measure provides for retroactive immunity, whereby individuals or organizations that broke the law as it existed are granted immunity for prior illegal actions once the law has been changed. Ex post facto laws have long been considered anathema in free societies under rule of law. Our Founding Fathers recognized this, including in Article I section 9 of the Constitution that “No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” How is this FISA bill not a variation of ex post facto? That alone should give pause to supporters of this measure.
Mr. Speaker, we should understand that decimating the protections that our Constitution provides us against the government is far more dangerous to the future of this country than whatever external threats may exist. We can protect this country without violating the Constitution and I urge my colleagues to reconsider their support for this measure.