Letters to the Editor
Joel_Grant
Published Letters: 182 Editor's Choice: 14
-
@ Baldie McEagle
[Read the article: Why the Jeremiah Wright story deserves more attention]
[Read more letters about this article: Here](re-post to correct a typo; added word in CAPS)
Who believes:
"I doubt anyone here thinks Wright is of no interest whatsoever in this election year."
I am that guy.
Jeremiah Wright's opinions are intesting as an election issue only insofar as they are shared by a candidate. And that means they are of no election interest at all, because if a candidate shares those views they are interesting because they are the views of a candidate.
Wright's opinions would surely be interesting to Obama's biographer, but Wright's opinions tell me nothing about Obama's ablitities or his intent.
We are facing a world wide food shortage; a continuing occupation of Iraq; a potential meltdown in the world's financial system; an increasingly dysfunctional healthcare system; homelessness; soaring budget and trade deficits; crumbling infrastructures; students who are falling increasingly behind; and is that enough?
When is enough enough?
At some point we will look back at these days, as the nation obsessed over a presidential candidate's MINISTER'S opinions, with shame. Well, most of us will.
The Karl Roves and neocon warmongers will look back in pride that they were able to hijack what should be a serious undertaking, the selection of a president who is going to inherit a country that is hurtling towards the edge of the cliff.
Interesting? Jeremiah Wright? This whole thing is nothing but the age-old right wing red and race-baiting game.
Some of us fell for it again. So how do we stop? How do we leave this crap "issue" behind and get back to the serious business of vetting the people who would make life or death decisions?
I think we stop by stopping and this is my last post or comment about any of this.
Everyone - just slap your cheeks, wake up, and leave this non-issue behind. Let Karl Rove work on his next scheme and let the rest of us figure out how to keep on living.
-
Change the premise
[Read the article: Fred Hiatt on the noble glories of occupation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Hiatts of the world accept the premise that rules do not apply to the United States. We are exceptional. We have the right to do whatever we want to whomever we want to do it, at any time and in any place.
The only limit is one of practicality. Hiatt bizarrely thinks it is more practical to occupy other countries rather than just carpet-bomb them.
Nevertheless, all we have to do is say we are afraid that another country (or a small group of terrorists who base themselves in another country) might think about doing something against American interests. If we say that, we can kill them all.
Do you think I exaggerate? Read this:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/sectionV.html
That is the 2006 National Security Strategy.
A relevant passage:
To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense. The United States will not resort to force in all cases to preempt emerging threats. Our preference is that nonmilitary actions succeed. And no country should ever use preemption as a pretext for aggression.
Note the astonishing statement, made three years after the invasion of Iraq, about not using preemption as a pretext for agression.
Not everyone accepts the premise that the rules do not apply to the United States.
But that is the great divide of American foreign policy arguments. We either have to obey the law or we do not.
I am not sure that Obama favors abandoning American exceptionalism, but he may feel there are at least some moral limits on what we can do. Time will tell.
-
How to eradicate a myth?
[Read the article: McCain, Obama, Clinton push dangerous vaccine-autism myth]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As many of the letters here demonstrate, the myth that vaccines have something to do with autism seems impossible to kill.
It is clear that more people are being diagnosed with autism. It is also clear that the increase in diagnoses tracks with factors such as:
a. The broadening of diagnostic criteria from "autism" to "autism spectrum disorder".
b. Increased surveillance and parental involvement. Listen to Dr. Steven Novella in the excellent blog about science based medicine at: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=95#more-95
In addition to the broadening of the diagnosis, the social and medical network supporting ASD dramatically increased. There has been increased efforts at surveillance - scouring the community for hidden cases of autism. Further, parents have become much more accepting of the diagnosis, which may partly be due to the fact that is some states the label with facilitate access to special services. And clinicians have become more knowledgeable of ASD so are better able to make the diagnosis, even in subtle cases.
The best evidence strongly indicates no connection between environmental factors, including vaccines and mercury emissions from coal-burning plants.
The negative consequences of avoiding vaccines are demonstrated on a regular basis. Let's get back to reason and focus our efforts where they might pay off.