Letters to the Editor
Thadeus Crumm
Published Letters: 14
-
Fundamentally Flawed
[Read the article: The only way out]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What Conason's plan fails to take into account, and what's causing Democrats in Congress such consternation, is that the US can't possibly broker an honorable resolution in Iraq while the dishonorable people who invaded the country illegally, and for their own reasons, are representing us.
We have no credibility with the community of nations, because of Bush. We have no credibility with the United Nations, because of Bush. We have no credibility with the common Iraqi people, because of Bush. We have no credibility with Shiite fundamentalists, Kurds, Sunnis, or anyone else on the planet, because of Bush.
Remove Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice et al, and all kinds of possibilities open themselves up.
How about asking the UN and our European friends to reconstruct the country, using American reparation funds, after we perform a controlled withdrawal? It would begin the rehabilitation of America's image in the world, and since the true coalition would encourage using Iraqi contractors to do the work, would ultimately even be cheaper for us, in pure dollar terms as well as in the cost in American and Iraqi blood. The Iraqi government that emerged after another election (this one not at American gunpoint) would not be seen as a collarator government, or a puppet of the US, and therefore would not be a target for disaffected Iraqis.
Sounds good? What's the main obstacle to such a solution? One word: Bush.
Democrats can't bring themselves to point out the elephant in the room until, we must imagine, Bush's poll numbers are in single digits. Of course, it was their cravenness that enabled Bush in the first place, so why would we expect profiles in courage from them now?
-
With Whips like these...
[Read the article: A Democrat knocks Colbert, says Bush "deserves some respect"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... who needs wet noodles?
The job should go to someone else, no someone who's determined to support the President no matter what he does.
Would the Republicans ever put someone this weak on their own party in such a position of power?
-
Par for the course?
[Read the article: No sympathy for the devil]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Should anyone really be shocked at this latest revelation of Richards' behavior?
Yes, they should. This isn't par for anyone's course.
Snorting your cremated father is the most depraved, yet presumably legal, idea I've ever heard.
It is in a class by itself. Until now, we had plenty of cause to doubt Richards' self-control, but never his very humanity.
Disney was right to distance itself from him.
-
Mizbinkley
[Read the article: No sympathy for the devil]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How about someone eating their parent's corpse?
Would that bother you?
I don't see much difference between the two. It's absolutely inhuman.
-
Think it was all a put-up job?
[Read the article: No sympathy for the devil]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Say something outrageous as only an aging, crazy, addled rocker can and watch the money men run for the hills. Brilliant."
Hey, I said he was inhuman, and what he did was monstrous.
But I didn't say he was Ann Coulter. That'd be going too far.
-
What's excellent about this little scoop...
[Read the article: "Some very thoughtless person"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... is that it finally means that political reality has hit this administration.
2 years ago, or even 1 year ago, they still be able to blame it on the Democrats, and the media would just swallow it whole, logic be damned.
The media are still eating a lot of administration bullpuck, but they're not just eating everything that's given to them.
So this signals a very welcome change: the White House can't just claim reality is whatever they want any more.
-
From the Achenbach piece
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Believing in something that's not true is considered a sign of character."
I'd like to point out that believing in something despite mountains of evidence to the contrary is pretty much the definition of faith, and the more you do it, the stronger your character is supposed to be as a result.
I used to believe that the right had co-opted the use of faith in order to bind supporters to them who wouldn't leave despite evidence that the political leadership was simply using them.
That may still be true to some extent, but now it appears that this is a double-edged sword, and it's impossible to cynically manipulate the faithful (read: gullible) without contaminating your own ability to reason in the process.
And make no mistake; it's not doubt which is in such short supply, per se, although that's certainly a secondary effect. It's reason itself that's under attack.
If you think, it's almost as if you're saying you don't believe. In a nutshell, there's a substantial portion of the American population that distrusts thought for exactly that reason.
-
Ruined by *greed*?
[Read the article: Requiem for a poker game]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There are a lot of silly things about this article, but the notion that a form of gambling is ruined by all this unsightly greed really has to take the cake. Those are some darkly rose-colored glasses that can look back into a past where poker served a philanthropic function.
I've been playing in casinos for a few years now, and a lively, joking table is the norm rather than the exception. Usually, the guy who's not talking at all isn't winning, either.
TV definitely gives a slanted view of the game, by concentrating on big-pot showdowns, and letting viewers see who's bluffing, but it's sure not making the average casino player any smarter.
And I guarantee you that if you go back to the old west, and look in on the canonical, romantic saloon poker game, the guy who's winning is the one who knows exactly how likely his inside straight draw really is.
They had numbers back in those days, too, you know?
-
*This* is what Salon is foisting on us as a review?
[Read the article: "The Invasion"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"authentic dualism"
"ultimately eschews nihilism"
"elegiac despair"
"A coda on what happens"
Is Salon really forcing people to pay for this sophomoric gibberish? Am I supposed to decide whether to see this film or not based on some schoolgirl's self-important gossipy pronouncements?
I see she's got another job around Salon. C'mon, guys. I'm all for affirmative action, but do you give the janitor a column, too?
Hire real writers. Let them write.