Letters to the Editor
WeikuBoy
Published Letters: 487 Editor's Choice: 62
-
I Like to Watch (Democrats Win)
[Read the article: Is there life after Bush?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I see Tom Reed has taken time out from berating Heather Havrilesky to ask two pretty good questions: 1. Why haven't we "liberal intellectuals" done a better job of engaging and educating the red state folk who control the flawed electoral college; and, 2. Why haven't the Dems offered more effective candidates and more effective campaigns.
1. Let me reply that I would like to hear Tom Reed's own ideas on how to reach the red state folk. As I recall, the last two decades have primarily been about us being forced to respect their faith (evangelical Christianity) and values (love guns, hate women). As that has led directly to Bush-Cheney and the disaster in Iraq, it is possible they'll be in a more humble and thus receptive mood this next time around; so what do you suggest?
2. John Kerry and especially Al Gore would have made excellent presidents; but I'll never forget watching Gore mop the floor with Junior in their debates -- only to have the media declare Gore the loser. It foreshadowed the 2000 vote, which Gore won. Dem candidates have to fight the media as well as the GOP slime machine, which no doubt explains their (ahem) "caution" in hesitating to engage in unfair "heads I win, tails you lose" fights.
The rise to prominence of e-journals like Salon and the blogosphere in general will no doubt help a lot this time around; but again, how do YOU suggest We the People can overcome the stacked deck of a flawed electoral college plus a biased corporate media?
-
Heckuva Job, Wolffie
[Read the article: The "fantastic job" Newsweek's Richard Wolffe claims he is doing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The problem is not with Wolffe's notion that journalism involves asking questions and reporting information. The problem is that for the past six years the press corps has not made the effort to extend its inquiries beyond the Bush-Cheney White House. It's not a surprise that this administration refuses to admit that Iraq has been a Big Lie. The only surprise has been the media's credulousness, and refusal to dig deeper for the truth.
Press briefings should be a time for these so-called journalists to seek official reaction to important stories that others have reported. For example: "What action, if any, does the president plan to take in response to Dana Priest's expose of the shocking conditions at Walter Reed Hospital?" or "Does the administration care to comment on the U.N. report that global warming is real?" As it is, press briefings are about disinformation and spin.
The same press corps treated the Clinton White House with far less deference; but come to think of it, most of their breathless reporting back then was spoon-fed to them by GOP operatives, particularly "independent" inquisitor Ken Starr. So I guess the real question now is why aren't Dem operatives busy spoon-feeding these "journalists" who no longer believe that journalism is part of their job description?
-
Explain this to me like I'm stupid
[Read the article: Emulating the enemy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Osama bin-Laden and al-Qaida were behind 9/11. But five years later bin-Laden remains a free man in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan, while al-Qaida continues to threaten the West and perpetrate a long series of terrorist attacks (Bali, Madrid, London, Istanbul, Amman).
How exactly have Bush-Cheney stood up to "our" enemies? How exactly have they been tough on terrorism? -- besides all of their empty faux-macho "dead or alive" tough talk.
What do you imagine the so-called republicans would be screaming about right now, if a President Gore (or Kerry or Clinton) had shown such shameful weakness in the aftermath of 9/11? (Hint: it begins with the letter "I" and ends in "peachment".)
-
Overflowing Lavatories?
[Read the article: Ask the pilot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Pilot says: "If the flight itself is scheduled to be 13 hours long, a multi-hour delay doesn't seem so bad. If, on the other hand, it's a 90-minute flight..."
Jeez, Patrick, with all due respect, you really DON'T get it. I had assumed you were having fun yanking our chains by defending the indefensible; but now I have to ask: when exactly was the last time you were actually IN coach on a long-haul flight?
Personally, I've found that 7 hours in coach is a piece of cake. The 8-hour mark is when things start to become uncomfortable, and I find myself staring at the Time to Destination clock. Anything more than 10 hours is basically a silent-scream endurance test. And that's under the best possible conditions, as we race to our destination.
I can barely imagine how uncomfortable it would be to have to spend even 4-5 hours in coach while NOT GOING ANYWHERE, in a stuffy, overheated cabin without access to food, water, or working lavatories. I think it's amazing there hasn't been a tarmac-rage incident (yet). But I can attest that a 3-hour maintenance delay leads to more physical discomfort when it is tacked on at the beginning of a 15-hour flight than a 2-hour flight.
Clearly, the airlines are not going to fix the problem on their own; thus, legislation is the only answer. However, as the airlines have lobbyists and We the Flying Public do not, I won't be holding my breath (unless I have the misfortune to be stuck on such a flight).
-
Weak and Stupid
[Read the article: Various matters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Bush-Cheney failure to catch bin-Laden and stop al-Qaeda FIVE YEARS after 9/11 doesn't make the U.S. look weak?