Letters to the Editor
Whispers
Published Letters: 385 Editor's Choice: 11
-
numbers are damned inconvenient things, aren't they?
[Read the article: The tragic collapse of America's standing in the world]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes, the US is less popular in the UK than we were in France in 2000.
RealName's theories are interesting, even if they lack any kind of what statisticians call "controls". But, FWIW, I would happilly stipulate that the complete collapse of respect for the US in Indonesia, for example, is due the Bush's declaration of a Global War on Islam^WTerror.
Of course, RealName and his ilk have already decided that Arabs/Islams (who can tell them apart?) are inevitably the enemies of the United States. What is certainly true is that indiscriminately invading non-threatening Arab and Islamic nations will inevitably have a negative impact on the American image worldwide.
One good way to win the propaganda war with the Arab masters controlling world opinion would be to simply withdraw from Iraq. This step would also have the benefit of saving the US billions and billions of dollars.
Bush's inevitable humiliation would only be a bonus. But that's inevitable in any case.
-
Poco
[Read the article: This Modern World]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Facile points. If you want the Democrats to do something, say what they should do. Keep in mind that there aer not even 50 Democrats in the Senate, so their legislative power is limited. Or, to put it another way, people who blame the Democrats for not being able to override a Bush veto simply don't understand how the system works. (Or they do understand but prefer to take a cheap shot anyway.)
Also, check your usage of capital letters and apostrophes. When you say "the democrat's six months in power" that means something entirely different from "the Democrats' six months in power". It is particularly bad to fail to capitalize a proper noun that can function equally well as a common noun, and the position of the apostrophe lets us know whether you are using the possessive to apply to one person (the democrat's) or several (the democrats').
You may think correcting grammar is cheap and easy, but I figure if you have in fact written a grammatically correct sentence, but one which has a meaning completely different from what I think you mean, than some clarification is in order.
-
ok, can we stop with the moralizing?
[Read the article: Sen. David Vitter, a leading Christian social conservative]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I mean, will the mainstream media stop with the ongoing premise that anybody who claims to be moral and religious needs to be taken at face value. After all, nobody runs for Senate on the platform of being an adulterer. And yet the most "conservative" Republicans seem to be found to be doing this, time and time again.
Makes one suspect their idea of morality is more connected to the benefits of authoritarian patriarchy than to any deeply held spiritual belief or awareness.
I wonder at what point the rubes of the right are going to get tired of the endless cycle of posturing, discovery of "falling to temptation", tearful apology and immediate acceptance of the apology by the political establishment.
-
eff u, Swift
[Read the article: Various matters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Jon Swift said:
While a series of "unfortunate events" even worse than the ones in the Lemony Snicket books would certainly be unfortunate, it wouldn't be all bad news since people would start supporting the War in Iraq again.
Remember, we need the war in Iraq to fight terrorism. And we need terrorism to fight the war in Iraq. But I thought the stated purpose of the so-called "Global War on Terror" is to prevent terrorism. But now we see the true nature of the beast driving the military action: the people who back the war are actually on the side of terrorism.
And if you think about it, it makes sense. We either have to conclude that the entire Republican party is a collection of bumblef*cks who cannot tell that their war is increasing the threat of terrorism, or we can conclude that the war is doing exactly what they want it to do. Mr. Swift has allowed a glance behind the curtain. Even though the brainless scarecrow named W. may seem more like the former type of war supporter (clueless and stupid), at some point one is forced to conclude that some of the people driving the calls for war are in the second class.
If Mr. Swift would be so kind as to meet me in Tavistock Square, I'll kindly express to him my "thoughts" about his "domestic peace is a bad thing" approach to politics. (Do you think we can fairly accuse him of giving 'aid and comfort' to the 'terrorists' when he is openly saying that he wants to see another successful attack?)
-
strange notion of precedent
[Read the article: Is the Bush administration ... right?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This article seems to be claiming that a ridiculous opinion written by a Reagan administration official should somehow have some weight as a precedent for the current ridiculous behavior. The problem is that this overreaching notion of executive privilege has never been supported by any court. The Founders never empowered the Executive branch to be the sole judge as to whether their own behavior was consitutional or legal.
In the big picture, what we currently have is an Executive branch that has been using the DoJ to violate the law, and is now telling the DoJ to stonewall any investigate the initial lawbreaking. To be blunt, this is not Constitutionally-sanctioned behavior. The notion of Executive privilege is not codified into the Constitution precisely because it is an idea that would have been anethema to the people who wrote it. Our Constitution does not recognize the idea that the Executive branch is allowed to keep secret whatever it wishes to keep secret, including evidence of its own lawbreaking behavior. The idea that executive privilege can be used to this end was a cockeyed notion originally cooked up by President Nixon, but which has never been supported by any court. Indeed, the case most often cited when referring to executive privilege was one where Nixon's assertion of privilege was shot down.
Let's keep all this in perspective. The current invocation of executive privilege has no more legal precdent to it than if Abu Gonzales came out and said that his perjury was legal because he had crossed his fingers while under oath.