Letters to the Editor
bill-in-la
Published Letters: 13 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Goldberg's article distorts geography
[Read the article: Is the "Israel lobby" distorting America's Mideast policies?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Goldberg's article begins with an incredible distortion -- the map, which bears little resemblance to reality. On Goldberg's map, Israel is shown as larger than Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- when in fact it is much smaller. On Goldberg's map, Jordan is missing entirely. A comparison with a real map shows that the country marked "Israel" on Goldberg's map is approximately Israel + Jordan. How much credence are we supposed to give an article of analysis that cannot get basic geography correct? And how much credence are we supposed to give Salon.com if its fact-checkers can't get basic geography correct?
-
Habeas Corpus
[Read the article: Keep the Great Writ alive]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The most fundamental principle of law is the right to challenge the actions of the state. To deny detainees the right of habeas corpus is to say that the state can do no wrong. Bush says the terrorists are jealous of our freedoms; if this is so, we have nothing to worry about, because soon we will have no freedoms left.
-
Reasoned debate
[Read the article: Rush Limbaugh, Michael J. Fox and the cruelty within]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh accuse the Democrates of using victims to prevent reasoned debate (9/11 widows, Michael J. Fox, etc.). But Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are not at all interested in reasoned debate -- they are interested in personal attacks on the the debater. Michael J. Fox's TV ad is powerful because it puts a face on the abstraction of Parkinson's disease (just as the picture of a starving child puts a face on the abstraction of starvation in Africa) -- but it would have no lasting impact if its core were not true. Stem cell research is the best lead medicine now has for treating Parkinson's disease and many others. If the issue about stem cell research is the use of human embryos -- as conservatives claim it is -- Rush Limbaugh can and should debate that issue. Of course, he would then have to explain why it is acceptable for embryos to be washed down the sink rather than used in medical research ...
-
what evidence?
[Read the article: Rape charges dropped in Duke case]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"a move toward trying the case based on the evidence" ... What evidence? The complaining witness has told at least four substantially different stories. The other woman who performed at the party does not confirm any of those four stories. The prosecutor has offered no physical evidence whatsoever. The entire case is a perfect example of how individuals can be destroyed by an unscrupulous prosecutor.
-
1st Amendment
[Read the article: How to fix campaign financing forever for $50]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't see how this can work. The 1st Amendment protects speech -- political speech above all. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that government cannot ban contributions to candidates or to issues. So nothing in this proposal can prevent large corporations or groups of private citizens or single individuals from spending millions of additional dollars -- whether as direct contributions or as contributions to issue advertisements. Large donors will still be able to contribute large amounts of money in ways the candidates will know about, and the problems will return.
-
The speech Hillary should not give
[Read the article: The speech Hillary should give]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In 2002 we knew Saddam Hussein had possessed at least weapons of mass destruction and the willingness to use them -- after all, he had already used gas on the Kurds. There was reason to believe that the reason he defied sanctions and inspections was that he still possessed weapons of mass destruction and was making more. There was reason to believe that Iraq was in a position to de-stabilize the entire Middle East. As much as I disliked and mistrusted Bush, at the time there was no reason to believe he was lying to Congress (by omission at the very least).
Given the perceived threat it was not at all unreasonable to vote authorization to use force -- especially since it seemed unlikely that force would actually be necessary, and inconceivable that any President would invade another country with such poor planning for the aftermath. Yes, voting to authorize force has been shown to be wrong -- on the basis of information -- that the Bush administration was lying and incompetent -- that was not available at the time. So what? I'm not especially fond of Hillary and not enthusiastic about having her as President. The best arguments for her? Three words: McCain, Giuliani, Romney. (And after that it gets worse.)
-
Israel and Iran
[Read the article: Inside America's powerful Israel lobby]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Israel's neighbors have started four wars intended do destroy it. The leader of Iran has announced that his country intends to acquire nuclear weapons and use them to destroy Israel. I think Israel has every right to be concerned. I do not agree with -- or defend -- all of Israel's actions in regard to settlements, fences, rights of Palestinians -- but let us not forget that it is the Arab countries, totaling 50 times Israel's size, that are attempting to destroy Israel and not the other way around. And for those who argue that Israel's possession of nuclear weapons somehow justifies Iran's, let me point out that Israel has neither used nuclear weapons nor threatened to do so -- while Iran has made clear that it intends to acquire nuclear weapons AND to use them.
-
Should Clinton quit?
[Read the article: Politico: "Clinton has virtually no chance of winning"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The DNC rules make clear that the Florida and Michigan primaries should not be used to seat delegates. The DNC rules make equally clear that superdelegates are free to vote as they think best. If the DNC had intended that superdelegates should be bound to whichever candidate had a plurality of delegates or of primary votes or of primary votes of registered Democrats or of primary votes of registered Democrats in some particular state they would have written the rules to reflect that intent.
I think it is almost certain that a large majority of superdelegates will vote for Senator Obama if he has majorities of delegates and of the popular vote when the primaries are over. Will he have such majorities? Very probably. When will we know for certain? When the primaries are over.
Ten state primaries are still to come. It is unlikely that Senator Clinton will do well enough to overcome Senator Obama's lead in delegates or in the popular vote. "Unlikely" is not the same thing as "impossible."