Letters to the Editor
Reality-based Liberal
Published Letters: 774 Editor's Choice: 100
-
@ prunes
[Read the article: McCain: Threatening to bomb sovereign countries is "naive"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Please cite in Glenn's post where McCain says we should bomb Iran now.
I don't trust McCain, and he may want to bomb Iran now, but he consistently uses language that leaves him the out -- e.g. bombing Iran should be "left on the table"; is "better than Iran having the bomb" (which it doesn't); etc.
-
@ prunes
[Read the article: McCain: Threatening to bomb sovereign countries is "naive"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'll add that McCain's criticism seems to be that you don't say you "will" do something -- you do whatever the fuck you please with no warning. In that vein, McCain's throwing out the possibility that we could bomb Iran is consistent.
Again, McCain = psycho freak. Just want us to be careful.
-
@ prunes
[Read the article: McCain: Threatening to bomb sovereign countries is "naive"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We're having two different debates. I agree McCain is insane. I think our saber-rattling against Iran is dangerous imperialism. All I'm saying is that Glenn's implication that McCain is a hypocrite on the Obama point is not substantiated in this post.
-
Obama writes his own books
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's Texas-size moment ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here] -
What is Manjoo's purpose?
[Read the article: Satellite shoot-down conspiracies]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First off, the issue at hand is not a "conspiracy theory." Whatever the reason for shooting down the satellite, it was undertaken by more than one person; "conspiracy" doesn't distinguish anything, it simply passes judgment on those who ask questions.
Second, those who suspect we are testing our ability to shoot down satellites are hardly wearing tinfoil hats. The likelihood that the fuel would come down intact, on land, in a populated place -- and that someone would breath it in while standing over it (apparently what would be necessary to harm someone -- is clearly not the reason we spent a ton of money shooting it down. If we cared this much about the potential for such civilian accidents, we probably wouldn't sell rogue nations cluster bombs.
Finally, what on earth is Manjoo talking about when he suggests that pictures of the strike released by the government won't make questions about motive go away in this age of digital altering? The pictures, which I assume are real, have no bearing on motive whatsoever.
Shoddy, shoddy thinking.
-
True, Nader is a joke...
[Read the article: Dems condemn Nader]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But it's too bad. The Nader problem goes beyond his potential to win votes that might otherwise go to the Democratic candidate (an ever decreasing potential) -- I think the bigger Nader problem is that he is the only one saying what he says.
Nader deals with real world. Most Democrats in office/running for office live in some fake world, caught between reality and propagandistic bullshit. While Nader doesn't seem to be bringing anyone closer to reality these days -- largely because of his previous runs -- someone must.
I won't argue that the Democrats and Republicans are the same, but I think a case can be made that our systemic direction as a nation is largely supported by both (private control of resources over public control; right to global military dominance with guns before butter; American exceptionalism when it comes to the rule of law; and hostility toward any true threat to corporate control of global decision-making).
In other words, Democrats seem to acknowledge that a world in which the rich rule is flawed, yet their energies seem entirely focused on making that world kindler and gentler, which in the long run supports that world -- prolongs it.
Consider that Democrats will offer: no single payer healthcare, but increased subsidies for people to buy corporate insurance; no public work programs, but offsets for private businesses' payrolls (tax breaks for hiring poor); no huge investments in public education but a couple extra dollars to support the private bank loan program for higher education. Internationally it gets worse, with many Democrats openly supporting the transfer of poor nations' resources into the hands of trans-national corporations, in exchange for loans.
The problem is not that Nader is annoying, it is that the only person willing to run for president who will say what he says has become an annoyance.
-
Why I will not vote for Clinton
[Read the article: No Hail Mary for Hillary]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I had thought that I'd vote for whoever won the Democratic primary, but last night I decided I cannot vote for Clinton.
I had always found her corporate and disingenuous, but when she complained about "the retreat from democracy" in Latin America, she lost my vote, no matter how close the race is in November.
Latin America is undergoing a democratic explosion -- there are more internationally observed elections than ever before -- with polls in the countries showing more people have faith in the democratic processes than ever before.
So Clinton, like Bush, is using the word "democracy" to define US allies, not to define a method of choosing a government. And that Orwellian bullshit I will not tolerate any more.
-
@Persia
[Read the article: No Hail Mary for Hillary]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I hear you, and that has been my practice for a long time. Both Clinton and Obama have made me feel like I'd be compromising a lot, but I'd go ahead -- better than McCain.
But something broke inside me when I heard that. It was a lie. It was propaganda. It was an attack on democracy. It was classic Bush.
It's perfectly fine if we don't agree with a democratic nation, but to use the word "democratic" interchangeably with "U.S. ally" is perversion. It is what I hate about Bush, more than anything -- his destruction of informed discourse.
I understand your position and I'm not asking anyone else to sit out, but my moral compass compels me to not vote for Clinton.