Letters to the Editor
RichEmery
Published Letters: 840 Editor's Choice: 191
-
Response to "Mike"
[Read the article: The morality of Gen. Peter Pace]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm joining in the fray a little late, but have to make one point -- while I agree with "Mike" that the general WAS simply asked his personal opinion about military policy toward gays, and that he's perfectly entitled to his opinions, would he have been equally forthcoming about ANY other military issue?
I sincerely doubt Gen. Pace would have uttered one syllable of disagreement over anything else of real importance (e.g., administration policy in Iraq or Afghanistan, or military detainees, or any other issue you'd care to mention) while still remaining in the chain of command.
The expected, and appropriate, response in such situations would be to gracefully decline to offer your own opinions, saying you were fully committed to follow official policy, but would always express candid opinions about all issues PRIVATELY. I'd be very interested in knowing why Pace felt THIS issue, above all others, is fair game for expounding his own personal biases.
The larger question for American society is why anti-gay sentiments are among the only remaining biases that are perfectly OK to display in public. It's truly sad.
-
A Modest Proposal (with apologies to J. Swift)
[Read the article: At Justice, a "strong" prosecutor was a "loyal" one]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Can someone document the oath of office administered when someone is sworn in as United States Attorney? My assumption is that it's the same one other federal officials take -- something along the lines of "preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States of America to the best of my abilities", etc.
I don't dispute for one minute that U.S. Attorneys actually do serve at the pleasure of the President, but if that's the case, then here's my "Modest Proposal":
The oath of office for U.S. Attorney (and other such executive branch positions) ought to CHANGE, reflecting the reality that loyalty to the President, the GOP, and any other person or group you care to list is MORE IMPORTANT than actual job performance (loyalty to the law and to the U.S. Constitution). Each USA should pledge fealty to the President of the United States, and just omit the obvious falsehood (at least with THIS administration) that the law is supreme in this country.
My real apology to Jonathan Swift: my proposal is NOT all that satirical, is it? That's the way it is -- with newest apologies sent out to Walter Cronkite...
-
"The Daily Show" is the worse threat to politicians, by FAR
[Read the article: Warning to Democrats: Steer clear of Colbert]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The opening ten minutes of each Daily Show are usually a FAR worse threat to politicians, and here's why -- Jon Stewart and his producers are absolute genuises at digging up real video footage of our "leaders" saying and doing incredible things, thereby actually holding them accountable.
No manipulation or editing is necessary. The Daily Show just presents these people as they are -- lying, twisting, flip-flopping, spinning and generally showing how undeserving many truly are. Rep. Emanual would be well advised to offer THIS advice to Democrats -- always be conscious and aware of your REAL statements and actions, because it's hard to explain everything away when your recorded history comes back to haunt you in the guise of Jon Stewart!
If only traditional news organizations like CNN, CBS, etc. did half as good a job of holding our political leaders accountable. It's all hiding in plain sight anyway -- how is that The Daily Show consistently runs laps around our mainstream media in this regard?
-
And what IS truth?
[Read the article: Can anyone tell the truth?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]While not a fan of many Andrew Lloyd Webber/Tim Rice productions, I've always loved "Jesus Christ Superstar". One particularly memorable passage from Rice's lyrics applies to this situation.
- - - - -
Pontius Pilate (singing to Jesus):
What is truth?
Is truth unchanging law?
We both have truths
Are mine the same as yours?
- - - - -
THIS White House doesn't regard the truth as anything that's unchanging -- Bush, etc. simply regard words both as a weapon and a shield, completely malleable and useful for any purpose at all (as long as it advances administration "goals", and regardless of OBJECTIVE truth).
We in the reality-based community really don't expect anything different from Bush and company. Not one thing.
-
I take the "No Mo' Joe" pledge...
[Read the article: Plame: I was covert until they outed me]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...right after this post. I'm going to put good old "Joe", who does his best to rattle the cage, stir the pot and get everyone's adrenaline rushing, into my "Coulter" category. Pay no attention to Ann C., or to Joe, any longer. It ain't worth the increased blood pressure and stroke hazard.
I assume Valerie Plame Wilson was under oath when testifying today. Here's what she said, in reference to the oft-repeated administration claim that SHE caused her husband to be selected for the Niger trip:
- - - -
"I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him. There was no nepotism involved. I did not have the authority," she said.
- - - -
Again, assuming she was under oath today and would (I'll go so far as saying, SHOULD) be charged with lying to Congress if her flat denials are not true -- and considering that many in the Bush administration have repeatedly been proven to be bald-faced LIARS -- WHY, Joe, should we believe you about this?
She couldn't have been plainer-spoken today. No spin or wiggle room at all in her statements. I, for one, believe her -- until proven otherwise. WHERE'S *YOUR* PROOF, Joe?
We're waiting. (I think we'll be waiting a LONG time, folks.)