Letters to the Editor
Tyler_Mason
Published Letters: 489 Editor's Choice: 41
-
scholars or priests?
[Read the article: The foreign policy community]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn describes a priesthood. They surround themselves with ritual and decree who is allowed to watch, participate and join. As with the Aztec priests, they are willing to doom some unwilling participants (they call 'em regrettable civilian losses and other euphemisms).
Interestingly, Glenn seems to want to learn the secret handshake. There is no secret handshake, just a willingness to engage, carve out territory, and protect turf. If you want in on the discussion, start discussing. If the priests won't talk to you, then talk to other people. If you catch the right ears, you win. Hell, even Ann Coulter is anointed as a serious voice in some circles. It's a matter of engaging and picking the right circle.
Gather other voices, have reasoned debate, and pull mind share. The priests will dismiss you until you get too loud to ignore. Then they will try to crucify you. Meanwhile, if you want a pissing contest with the priests then you must learn to use sound bites. A thousand word discourse works in the hallowed halls amongst those who play by certain "Byzantine rules" but taxes the attention (and indulgence) of others. Think of it this way: A truckload of poo is fertilizer while a slung turd is annoying and leaves a smear.
-
You're forgetting
[Read the article: Smearing Bill to get Hillary?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Bill still did some stuff after the impeachment. He gave presidential pardons to some shady people. There were also rumors that the clinton's "liberated" some items of value from the whitehouse.
So, there are a few new arrows in the quiver. I don't think any of them will pierce though - not even the marc rich pardon.
At least we (probably) won't hear about the maybury machiavellis again.
I finally found someone with a credible reason to vote for hillary. "why the hell not?" If the candidates are all indistinguishable corrupt scheming assholes, then the woman and the black man at least look different. Maybe a woman actually would be different. What's to lose?
-
Cold douche
[Read the article: Art movies: R.I.P.]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I spit hot coffee out my nose when I read that one. This is the first paglia column i've taken time to read and i'm now both richer and poorer.
Poorer because I expected to take 4 minutes to read a single page.
Richer because I had to read the whole thing and follow many links. The naomi mather vidi is great. I like it better than the holwlin' wolf version because I really really like raw guitar played well.
I never magined I'd like anything from clarkson, but have been now proved wrong.
I think I'll read the next column too.
Thnx
-
intelligent debate?
[Read the article: If you think they hate us now]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]KyMunkitt has it right. He needs a chatter bot to complete the task though. The basic programing is done, time to add in some phrases and let the new salon articles spew forth.
Sadly, the chatter bot will not be able to invent meaningless asides. For example, conason whiningly equates "global jihadist movement" with "every muslim on earth is coming to get us". We all know that when the repugs go to cover they will point out that al-qaeda spans the global and is thereby a global jihadist movement.
I'm currently weighing whether or not to cross the aisle to vote in the dem primary. I'm hoping for a palatable dem. It would be better if a bunch of liberals registered repug. Then they could vote for ron paul. After all, most liberals are in the "anyone but a repug" camp. They therefor don't care which dem gets nominated.
-
@Holly Capote et al
[Read the article: Chris Matthews skewers Mitt Romney]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Typical liberals. Always willing to ignore a civil right to push their agenda. In this case, the civil right is written as the 13th amendment to constitution (no more slavery). No one, not even republican chicken hawks, can "send their sons into the military". Nor their daughters. Those sons and daughters can go of their own free will, but no one has the right to send them. (except bush can send 'em into the torture chamber).
For those who think fundies (as in fundamentalist christian) don't send their kids to war - you're right. They do encourage and support the enlist decision. Those kids, also fundies, enlist of their own free will. As you claim to support the troops, go find some infantry and buy 'em a beer, you'll figure out who they are. Lots of deeply christian guys wondering what the hell went wrong.
-
@Garry Owen
[Read the article: Chris Matthews skewers Mitt Romney]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Having grown up in the military and having served in it, I know who I am more likely to find on post.
If you had gone for accuracy instead of snideness, you'd have mentioned catholics and lapsed catholics. They are disproportionately represented. Other than that, you run into lots of kids who grew up fundie.
Other faiths/non-faiths are certainly present, but not that huge a demographic.
Note: single troops tend to only attend church when on remote assignment. Mostly due to boredom. It's also best to go to church on an air force base - more women.
Besides, folks on this tread were ignorantly claiming that fundie kids don't serve. That's what I was addressing.
-
doctrinaire liberarians
[Read the article: Stronger government equals more freedom]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The problem with libertarianism is that it is often confused with the libertarian party. They don't have much in common because the party is full of various radicals who have driven out most of the actual libertarians.
A similar example is the US green party. It is composed largely of radical liberals who give a nod to the environment while using it as a basis for pushing various unrelated agendas.
Folks in this thread are riled up about the term "strong government". Too many different notions about what it means. To some it means fascism or communism. To some it means a functioning republic under the rule of law.
BTW @dissent, bad hair day? You're usually too insightful to support your arguments with a simple "DUH".
Strong regulatory apparatus? Why? Perhaps because it keeps people from fighting in the streets to protect property and enforce contracts.
Strong welfare state? Why? Perhaps because it gives some poor a safety net and gives other poor a reason not to riot.