Letters to the Editor
Whispers
Published Letters: 385 Editor's Choice: 11
-
what is the issue here?
[Read the article: Does Obama have a lobbyist problem too?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The issue with McCain is that he has consistently backed legislation that favors lobbyists who have given him money. Right?
And the issue with Obama is...that he knows lobbyists personally and sometimes works with people who work with lobbyists?
I like how the headline for this article is a question. You can pretty much say anything you want after a question mark headline.
Even if the answer is 'no', by simply asking a question, drawing false parallels, and insinuating using guilt by association, you seem to have thrown mud at a candidate.
I guess the problem is that Obama's chief strategist is somebody...who has experience with political advertising?
I mean, really!
-
preserving patriarchy more important than punishing pedarasty
[Read the article: Vatican to women: No stinkin' girls allowed!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Duh!
-
so tired of the noise
[Read the article: Why not let Clinton keep the four Michigan delegates?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I really hope that Clinton supporters like Taylor Marsh will wake up one morning and realize that they are not the only people in the country who have opinions about whether Obama can win in November. Furthermore, it would be doubly nice if they could admit, at least to themselves, that all they have are opinions as to whether Clinton is a more viable candidate. Personally, I have long felt that the opposite was true. And I suspect that the GOP party leaders were salivating at the prospect of facing Hillary Clinton in November.
I, however, at least recognize this opinion as being an opinion, and not a god-given fact.
-
milestones?
[Read the article: Manny hits home run No. 501!!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Anniversaries?
Birthdays?
Do you really not understand why these are celebrated, King?
(And yeah, it was Jimmie Foxx. Also, Griffey still hasn't hit his 600th yet.)
-
boo the president? Of course!
[Read the article: Newest McCain official: President has "near dictatorial powers"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The man is doing a poor job. He does not deserve loud or even tacit support when he's doing a poor job.
Why are people so mental about this? Public booing is a way of showing disrespect. If nobody was allowed to publicly disrespect the President, he would continue to think he was doing a poor job.
Nobody is above criticism in the US government. The fact that criticism of Bush is so vitriolic might be a reason to consider the actions of Bush himself rather than the people booing him, especially when his approval rating seeks historic lows.
...and meanwhile, the "let's bomb Iran" trial balloon is floated every few weeks.
-
is this the headline you wanted?
[Read the article: My cellphone calls too many timeouts]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Took me a click-through and a bit of reading to figure out that you were talking about the bad coaching practice of benching players with "early foul trouble" as opposed to the bad coaching practice of wasting timeouts.
-
cost of license fee
[Read the article: Nuclear bomb]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is claimed
All the problems with nuclear power are political, not technical. A new reactor approval from the NRC takes a minimum of 42 months. Applicants must pay the $217 per hour NRC staff fee. That is $40-60 million just for the permit.
This number seems a bit high to me. Googling a bit, I see that 42 months is the length of approval time (that seems long to me, seeing as the US participation in WWII lasted only a little over 44 months). Also, there is a $217/hour recover fee for NRC work.
I'm not seeing anything that would indicate that an applicant would be billed for every hour of every week for 3 1/2 years. Actually, even that would appear to be insufficient. $40 million divided by $217 would mean approximately 184,331 billable man hours would be charged for one license application. But it seems that the rate of $217/hour is flat, not per person.
See:
http://www.epa.gov/EPA-IMPACT/2006/May/Day-30/i4815.htm
There are only approximately 2000 billable hours in a fiscal year. That would make ~7000 hours in 42 months.
I don't know where the other 177,331 hours would come from.
I suspect the letter writer is off by several orders of magnitude in his estimate of the cost of a permit.
I would be happy to see a source for this figure of $40-$60 million.
(It is worth noting that administration fees have been increasing at a rate greater than the rate of inflation. This might be viewed as a side effect of the recent tax cuts, and the general pursuit of hidden taxes in the form of fees all throughout the government, at all levels.)
-
Wikipedia? lol!
[Read the article: Newest McCain official: President has "near dictatorial powers"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]jschultz cites Wikipedia!
I guess that is an equally authoritative source as the Constitution and the Federalist letters. !
!!!
This part is pure malarkey, FWIW.
Through the Department of State and the Department of Defense, the president is responsible for the protection of Americans abroad and of foreign nationals in the United States.
Um, no, neither the President nor the Department of State nor the Department of Defense is "responsible for the protection of Americans abroad". I should know: I was in London on 7/7/2005 when a bus blew up two blocks from my office.
Americans who live abroad are subject to local laws and part of what that entails is that you are living outside the protection of US laws. And what that entails is that the President and the various federal agencies are not responsible for my protection, should I choose to live abroad.
Next lesson: if you are abroad and, like countless Americans, have your bag stolen, I challenge you to try to bring the matter up with the local US embassy or consulate. Tell them that, according to Wikipedia, they are supposed to protect you.
If you are lucky, they will show patience as they refer you to the local police.
I realize its been fashionable in recent decades to expand the definition of the purpose of the military from "defend America" to "defend Americans" and now to "defend American interests", but can we at least point out that this expansion of definition has nothing to do with the original intent of the Constitution?