Letters to the Editor
ironocrat
Published Letters: 245 Editor's Choice: 4
-
Anonymous, re Roe v Wade
[Read the article: Paul Krugman criticizes Obama supporters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I appreciate your so kindly providing context. I'll admit, your explanation makes a lot of sense.
My difficulty is a claim such as "And you know what? I don't care if the Supreme Court DOES overturn Roe v. Wade" really carries a hefty weight in terms of tone.
Similarly, I'd wince if someone wrote "I don't care if we ARE in Iraq for 100 years" or "I don't care if climate change IS ignored for another four years". I think the reason is that after that sentence, I read "...because that's someone else's problem." It's the same gut reaction I get when (usually) young, white, middle-class libertarians discuss how if the indigent, ill, or disabled would simply just work harder they might overcome their difficulty.
Essentially, I'm hearing the common Republican argument that if something doesn't absolutely directly affect you, then it's someone else's problem.
I think one thing Senator Obama would want is for us to care more, not less. I'd hope that he does want us to care about Roe v. Wade, about Iraq, about climate change, et cetera.
To somewhat embarrassingly ape The Wire, it matters. It all matters.
Identity politics is unavoidable, but it's the issues that matter. There's a human cost to the issues, and directly or indirectly, we're all going to pay.
-
"Polarizing"
[Read the article: Paul Krugman criticizes Obama supporters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think the message here is that "polarizing" is a worthless adjective.
Politics in the US is for all intents and purposes two-sided. A Democrat will be polarizing to most Republicans, and vice versa.
Sure, there's a discussion to be had regarding degrees of polarization, but let's admit that this is an inherently polar system.
-
Politics as usual
[Read the article: "Maybe he'd prefer to give speeches"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Nothing will change.
Let's be honest: anyone running for the Democratic nomination has to say they'll get the troops out.
Anyone who told the honest truth and said "Well, we're there now and we're pretty righteously fucked as far as getting out" wouldn't even sniff a delegate.
Change all you want, but other than health care there is effectively zero difference between the two remaining candidates (who also happen to be the two most conservative and establishment of the whole crop).
-
Sure the center includes getting out of Iraq...
[Read the article: How the Web pushes politics further left, further right]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]for now.
Americans aren't opposed to war in general, they are opposed specifically to this one. Were it not for the economy tanking and other factors, the war would enjoy generally higher support, probably near 50%.
-
Voters get what they deserve
[Read the article: "Maybe he'd prefer to give speeches"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]and Democrats have consistently eliminated nearly all candidates showing any combination of competence, experience, or progressivism in favor of inspiration and admiration.
Them's the breaks I guess.
-
Why endorse?
[Read the article: Edwards leaning toward endorsing Clinton? Or maybe Obama?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]At this point there is zero upside to offering any kind of endorsement. There'd likely be no effect and no reward, and the potential downsides are enormous.
-
Deconstruction...
[Read the article: "Jumper"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...of crap just gives you lots of smaller bits of crap.
There's thinking, and there's overthinking.
If my dog craps on the floor, I may be invited to deduce that he was making a statement about Americans' epic consumerism as evidenced by the pet food industry and its recent failures of quality control. Or, he might have just needed to poop.
-
And allegations of "weak powers of insight" are...
[Read the article: "Jumper"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...the refuge of the intellectually insecure and pretentious.
My metaphor is probably unfunny because it's not a joke. Plenty of art, movies included, benefits greatly from deconstruction. The scatalogical aspect mirrors what I think of this movie and those like it.
But if you find yourself straining to find meaning in something very obviously intended to be made for X dollars and bring in 1.5*X, you're wasting your time.
As stated above, it's alright to think. As it is, your post makes me think you're entirely too vested in what is very clearly just a bad movie.
The most telling aspect of deconstructionists is how defensive they become when people are willing to dismiss their critical analysis of Howard the Duck as juvenile and overreaching.
But please, tell me how I'm immature for not universally applying the thought processes taught in high school English courses.
-
Further, Patrick
[Read the article: "Jumper"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Above, you wrote:
"Where is the emphasis in our culture on being smart, kind and respectful? No doubt there are examples to be found, but I think anyone would admit selfishness, mean spiritedness and vapid pride in nothing are considered much more virtuous today than being nice."
Would you classify your posts as "smart, kind and respectful"?
In fact, your insulting those that disagree with you is at least mean spirited. I won't ascribe further intent to your post.
-
MuseumGal
[Read the article: Clinton: "My opponent gives speeches, I offer solutions"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Bravo.
Hang in there; you can't question the game here without someone attacking you.
-
Hillary didn't vote on final passage of FISA
[Read the article: Clinton: "My opponent gives speeches, I offer solutions"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But then, neither did Obama.
-
melthough, you are just wrong.
[Read the article: Clinton: "My opponent gives speeches, I offer solutions"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]From Glenn Greenwald:
"Final passage in the Senate of the Cheney/Rockefeller bill was 68-29. 19 Democrats joined all Republicans to vote in favor of warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty: Conrad, Rockefeller, Baucus, Webb, Kohl, Whitehouse, Bayh, Johnson, Bill Nelson, Mikulski, McCaskill, Lincoln, Casey, Salazar, Inouye, Ben Nelson, Pryor, Carper, and Landrieu. Neither Obama nor Clinton voted on final passage."
You can check senate.gov if you don't believe Glenn or me.
-
melthough
[Read the article: Clinton: "My opponent gives speeches, I offer solutions"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That would be the vote for the immunity amendment, not passage of the bill as a whole.
Neither Sen. Clinton nor Sen. Obama voted on the final passage of the the whole package.
Here's your link:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00020
-
Slackie
[Read the article: Clinton: "My opponent gives speeches, I offer solutions"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't have a horse in this race.
Did the immunity amendment "really count" or did the passage of the bill? I'd say both, but the trajectory of this bill in the Senate has been obvious from the start.
Both sides look ridiculous excoriating the other over a vote that was predetermined to mirror White House expectations.