Letters to the Editor
ondelette
Published Letters: 1984 Editor's Choice: 19
-
There are too many confounding factors
[Read the article: Where's the outrage?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How come, with all the possible differences between the sixties and the current time, every single editorialist that wonders why there aren't the massive anti-war protests of the sixties focusses on the draft?
In the sixties:
1) The number of recording contracts for new artists skyrocketed from 1200 to 2900 in one year. The young were expressing themselves to each other and the record companies went out and begged them to record. Now we have 4 record companies that grow their stars in hothouses.
2) People on the street created their own fashions, and it took the clothing industry years to do bad imitations, even longer to get control of fashion again. Now they issue the clothes and we buy them.
3) There were new, experimental stations popping up all over the FM dial, trying new things, playing records no one had heard, interviewing very strange people. Now we have ClearChannel and pre-programmed play lists.
4) There were 2.5 hour feature films that experimented with everything from when to play the title to whether or not to have a plot, or music. Now there are action films that have the first violence at 22.5 minutes, and first product placement after 2.25 seconds.
5) There were no criminal background checks at employers. No one was worried that if they got arrested at the rally, they might get fired. Companies rightly felt that what employees did on their own time was their own business.
6) As has been mentioned by many, most people worked 40 hour weeks.
7) There hadn't been a thirty year concerted campaign to teach everybody that protest was bad.
8) Although they developed soon after the Vietnam War ended, there weren't these ubiquitous umbrella groups, like, as some have mentioned, ANSWER, that co-opted rallies for something other than why you were there. This also meant there were a lot more local rallies, not everybody went to Washington.
9) The GI bill and limits on numbers of tours meant that there were lots of returning vets on the college campuses.
10) Since almost everyone who fought was drafted, and therefore 19 years old, almost no one who went to fight and die got to vote about it. That was perceived as a whole lot more unfair than anything else, especially after the student deferment was dismantled. Changing it passed as a constitutional amendment in a very short time.
I don't recall the draft being the reason most people showed up at protest rallies, at all, ever. That's not to say no one was worried about it, they were. But it wasn't the only thing going on then that is different from today. All the above are just as legitimate to latch onto as the draft. Maybe we need more radio stations. Maybe we need more recording contracts. Maybe we need to decriminalize employees. I personally vote for reinstating the GI Bill, limiting tours, and putting more vets on campuses.
-
They always did
[Read the article: Gonzales: We'll get court orders for spy program now]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says that a FISA judge issued orders last week under which the government may monitor communications into or out of the United States if there is probable cause..."
Say what?
They always had the authority to surveil phone calls with probable cause, that wasn't the issue. The issue was whether probable cause existed based on Bush administration say so, or whether it existed when a court had reviewed the case for it, and ruled that probable cause existed -- by issuing a warrant to that effect.
-
Um, Alberto, have you heard of the 9th and 10th amendments?
[Read the article: The Alberto Gonzales School of Constitutional Interpretation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Backing up Daniel Dvorkin's letter, "we have those rights unless the Constitution explicitly gives the government the power to take them away". I have to disagree that Mr. Gonzales did well in his Constitutional Law class. He has never read the ninth and tenth amendments. So in case he might be reading this (LOL):
Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Mr. Dvorkin is absolutely correct, and the Constitution explicitly states that the Constitution starts with the rights being of the people, and then limits them as necessary. We have the right to the Writ of Habeas Corpus, because the Constitution prohibits taking it away.
-
No play in the press
[Read the article: The Alberto Gonzales School of Constitutional Interpretation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've been checking since Tim Grieves put the post up, and this hasn't been taken up by the news outlets whatsoever, all day.
The Bush people get away with battering the Constitution because of the deafening silence from those entrusted with speaking truth to power.
-
Slackie Onassis you hit the nail on the head
[Read the article: The Alberto Gonzales School of Constitutional Interpretation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We got into Iraq partly because a lot of people in the press could believe the Bush people would lie, but not about something as awful and important as war.