Letters to the Editor
Reality-based Liberal
Published Letters: 774 Editor's Choice: 100
-
misaac -- ACTUALLY
[Read the article: The emperor's new peace plan]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Egypt never lobbed anything in 67 and LBJ's intelligence was that Egypt was never going to attack. No one thought that, including Israel, who the US was in communication with. That Israel was defending itself is the same bullshit the public is always told when an ally or their nation starts a war.
I didn't want to jump into this; it's always the same tired arguments from the pro-Israel side: "we were just walking along, doin' nothin', then the Palestinians just went crazy and they never stopped, despite our offering them the world." It's just so fucking sick and immoral.
In these pro-Israel-posters' world, Israel isn't bulldozing homes in territory that they illegally occupy. In their world, Israel doesn't shoot women, children and old people, or steal land. Israel is just doing the best it can, and it's too bad these violent Palestinians can't just make peace. (And before any poster points out the rockets, there's a BIG DIFFERENCE: A) the rockets aren't fired by soldiers armed, salaried and acting in the name of a people, like the IDF; and B) the IDF kills a shitload more people than Palestinian peashooters -- the kill ratio since the 2nd Intifada is something like 8/1 -- with Israelis killing a disproportionate number of women and children).
I'm not sure if the pro-Israel people actually believe what they say or just know that someone has to keep saying it to stave off the ultimate judgment that will be made against Israel. That judgment has been made by most of the world already (including by many Jews in Israel who don't exist in the US press), and like Germany and South Africa before it, Israel will have to pay morally and probably financially. Better if that day comes sooner rather than later, though, for everybody's sake -- including Israel's.
-
Correction
[Read the article: The emperor's new peace plan]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]My 8/1 figure is children killed by Israel. Israel has killed only four times as many people total.
-
Are you sure about incrementalism?
[Read the article: "Missing" evidence is familiar Bush pattern]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think the GOP strategy was to push hard to the right as aggressively as possible. Even when their positions were out of favor, they pushed the crazy stuff from the start (flat tax, abolish the DoEd, etc.). So whether or not incrementalism is the right thing for the Democrats, I'd argue the GOP didn't win that way.
-
LWM -- you might have missed my point
[Read the article: "Missing" evidence is familiar Bush pattern]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I didn't say that the GOP's takeover was overnight. I said they pushed for the hard right from the beginning as a tactic (your example of Goldwater is excellent -- he was the genesis of the movement and he was no GOP version of Clinton or Obama).
So if by incrementalism you mean it's gonna take a while, sadly I agree and I'm sorry for the mistake. If you mean the Democrats are emulating the GOP strategy for success by moderating (in the beltway meaning of moderation), then I disagree.
-
Interesting discussion on anonymity
[Read the article: Voting by gender]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How many left-wingers, I wonder, would be comfortable having their face and voice -- their proof of identity -- associated publicly with their internet-searchable honest opinions?
I suppose it depends on your employer, family, or family member's employer. I bet a majority would exclude the thought immediately, opting to severely self-censor or avoid the whole thing all together.
"Hey Jody, they didn't tell you this, but the reason my firm dropped you from consideration for that job was because they found that video of yours saying that our relationship with Israel should be a two-way street. They were afraid your future clients might also find it. Sorry."
How free are we, practically?
-
Boy was that a buried lead!
[Read the article: Who is the most "electable" Democrat?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Did folks check out the story at CNN? For the first time this cycle, a Democrat beats all Republicans in a national poll and the headline is: "Huckabee would lose to top Democrats by double digits."
I think Edwards is the most electable candidate in the Democratic field, for both the good and bad reasons. He's been in and out of the system, and sides with regular folks more explicitly than other candidates. He's also a white man, which eliminates bigotry from the equation for more than a few swing voters.
To the person who suggested Obama/Edwards, I can't pick a bone with electoral experience -- it's within the margin of error (Obama has run more successful races and Edwards has run in a national presidential race).
But I give Edwards the edge, due to his expertise in thinking like the enemy. While trial lawyers are deservedly denounced as a class, it takes remarkable skill to operate on the level Edwards operated on -- lots of achievements with no tell-tale, ambulance-chasing cases to haunt him. He knows how corporations think about the law, and from his Senate and candidacy experiences he knows how they influence the law, lawmakers and elections.
Also, I think another poster pointed out that Obama as VP would train the nation to think about a black man in the White House -- and I have little doubt that such a presidency wouldn't use Obama as a free agent to manage his own body of work, setting him up for a run in 2016. God knows, Dick Cheney really expanded the possibilities when it comes to Vice President.
-
To Anonymous 4:17
[Read the article: Who is the most "electable" Democrat?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Polling is more than an art.
Sure, polling in Iowa is difficult, and should be understood as more "flexible" than other polling. But a huge amount of statistical data goes into good polling, which can be an excellent predictor or recorder of human action. I don't want to go into detail, but consistent variations in data (where patterns are well beyond the probability of random chance), produce information that is pretty damn close to scientific. In fact, the polling you cite that had Kerry winning on election night supports some of the most statistically valid claims of fraud.
Polling -- real polling -- produces useful data. That is why pollsters are rich.
Though you might tell your preferred candidate that it's not magic, and can't tell you who you are.