Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Published Letters: 491 Editor's Choice: 34
The definition of "liberal", as I apply it as a practicing liberal, includes high in the list of traits the active seeking of new information and different points of view. It requires a willingness to reconsider opinions and philosophies in light of new information. It also involves the sort of self-examination entailed in this article. This is the sort of thing I hope and expect to see on liberal Salon, but would be shocked to see it in any conservative media. Yes, The Weekly Standard and The American Conservative might bash each other, but it's for having the wrong sort of conservatism. There's no self-questioning involved.
I also want to tell Obama supporters that the article they disliked so much about his early career actually reassured me about one of my big reservations about Obama. I was concerned that he hadn't been through a tough campaign. I was in Illinois during the 2004 campaign, and he practically had a bye. I'm actually reassured to know he went through a tough campaign, got smushed, and changed a lot as a consequence. This coming at the same time as his bold retort to Australian PM John Howard put him on my personal short list. That's the kind of in-depth reporting that got me to buy my premium subscription.
I admit I haven't read all 300+ letters so at the risk of repeating something, two things jump out at me.
The first is that leagally, threats aren't protected by the first amendment. You can criticize someone, even in an insulting way, but you can't threaten physical harm. I don't know the proper legal term, but threatening to slit someone's throat is a felony even without acting on the threat. So stop having a thick skin. Turn in the people with the violent comments. Maybe when they get a call from someone in law enforcement they'll get scared and stop.
The second thing is I don't understand why anyone lets unscreened comments onto a blog. I might see it differently if my own blog (http://www.ravensblog.net, pardon the plug) got more comments, but I decide if a comment goes in the blog. There's more legal responsibility for the content I'm sure, but even no threats go up. The controversies over the awful things posted on liberal blogs that were used to show how vicious the left is, and to tar those specific blogs, could have been avoided if the blogs in question had just screened comments instead of finding and removing them.
There's no need to feel guilty about giving her more attention. It's how it's done. Let's think in turn of political jiu jitsu, or for a more western reference, the Rove strategy of using your opponents' strength against them. Republicans love Coulter, so let's stick her so close to Republicans that voters will think all Republican candidates have Coulter for a running mate. Let's make her the face of the GOP and let Americans be disgusted.If one of them gets caught in a photo with her, show that photo over and over. If she praises one of them, repeat that quote when talking about that candidate. Rather trying to make Coulter go away, we can make the GOP wish she would go away.
I don't know much about Gov. Crist. He sure seems like a liberal on election issues. As I recall, he has previously called for getting rid of touchscreens, and now he supports letting released felons vote. We should hold him up to his party as proof that justice and common sense don't hurt after all. They even get a lefty like me praising someone in the GOP.
I'm fully cognizant that McCain and the delusional right have been, well, delusional since the beginning about Iraq. I say that as someone who opposed the invasion back in 2002 when the evidence presented to the public failed to hold up. I nonetheless can't help thinking about mass killings and exodus of refugees after we got out of Indochina.
I say that fully aware that the problem was intervening in Vietnam and spreading the war to Laos and Cambodia, backing dictators and abandoning those who supported us. Nonetheless, war opponents and Democrats got most of the blame. The neocons are setting us up for the blame again, and concerns about what happens to those who supported us in Iraq are legitimate. I have them too, before ever hearing a warning from the nutcase right.
We have leave at some point, and the problem of safety for those deemed collaborators won't go away. That's why I'd like to see the withdrawal plans include enough visas to evacuate those associated with us. I realize the Bushies won't want that because it looks like an admission of failure to have to bring people here for their safety, but that should just show it needs to be done. Yes, I'll admit more than humanitarian concerns, though that should be enough; nonetheless, we need to get ready for the "who lost Iraq?" debate. If we lose that debate, which we can no matter how much Bush screwed up, we'll lose foreign policy and national security as in issue again for another generation.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
