Letters to the Editor
Reality-based Liberal
Published Letters: 774 Editor's Choice: 100
-
AKA Smith
[Read the article: Newest Clinton ad plays on security fears]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree about the oligarchy absolutely; I'd say that's an integral part of my argument. An oligarchy can't run on the platform "turn what little you have left over to us." They need to make up enemies to draw attention away from their deeds -- or even better, directly facilitate their ends.
Racism (and a handful of sexism) has always been the most common tool. Jews. Blacks. Latinos. Arabs. Often they use other words, like Islamofascism, which is ludicrous given that even if there were hoards of insane Arabs who wanted to "destroy our way of life," it wouldn't come close to the definition of fascism.
Republicans still provide a wide service of such racism, while Democrats tend to stick to ethnicities that don't live here in large numbers. But both back the oligarchy of which you speak by fanning the flames of diversion (fear of the crazy "other").
As to your question about 9/11, I wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan. We've made a miserable country even worse and did nothing to achieve "justice" for that crime (and it was a crime, not an act of war or genocide -- albeit a monstrous crime). If you recall, the Taliban, of which I'm no defender, said they'd hand over bin Laden if we could provide proof, and we said "no" and invaded. It felt good. We "struck back." But not against the people on those planes -- and even if we did kill a few people related to that crime, was it worth the "collateral damage?"
In fact, it bothers me a great deal that there was no investigation that proved who did it. I don't buy into any conspiracy theory -- including the official one -- and I would have liked to see irrefutable evidence before we unleashed death on hundreds of thousands (I require proof for the capital punishment of just one man -- all the more for two entire nations).
As for what I do to fight for a just world, you have no idea. I have been posting here a lot because I have had a kid sick at home and have stayed with him. I give a lot of my money away and my work allows me to raise international issues directly tied to the oligarchical problems of our planet.
-
@ AKA Smith
[Read the article: Newest Clinton ad plays on security fears]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks. I am all too familiar with holding my nose and pulling the lever. I've cast in with the Democrats my whole life and will continue to do so as I see that party as the only shot (though I will always work to make it better -- they don't get my vote without my opinion).
In any case, my state is going for the Dem regardless so I might hold back my vote for the Dem this time around, for my own reasons. If I lived in a swing state (or close to swing state), who knows?
-
@ ljwalker
[Read the article: Newest Clinton ad plays on security fears]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I guess I took "somewhere in the world" and "understands our military" to have been included to specifically play on the fears of those out there who do fear the "terror."
-
Suggest another focus
[Read the article: The ornery pride of the political journalist]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I understand that vast numbers get "information" from the MSM, but instead of trying to fix it, why not spend time directing people to alternative sources?
Here's how the MSM works: the GOP candidate is great and consistent and the Democratic candidate sucks for personality reasons (bathrooms) or gotcha stuff (B. Clinton blowjob or Farrakhan). NO CANDIDATE GETS EXAMINED ON WHAT THEIR POLICIES WILL ACTUALLY DO.
This is the problem with the media (as you've pointed out, Glenn). It doesn't exist to cover candidates in ways that inform voters. So it is silly to talk about their balance of coverage when it comes to Obama vs Clinton (remember that Clinton was the general candidate according to the media back in September -- can we remember back that far?).
The roll of the media is to obscure information that is useful and pick our candidates for us. That's it. Whether they attack Clinton or Obama more, the information is still useless and they'll turn on the eventual Democratic nominee.
If we had real media coverage it would be clear to voters that the Democrats are far too right-wing for the common good, and that the GOP is an unambiguous enemy of the state.
BALANCED BUDGET: It's impossible if you don't cut defense. The math is second grade (if you cut 100 percent of non-military discretionary funding you'd still run a deficit without a big tax hike). No candidate will cut defense and if they said that they planned to do so the media would call them terrorists.
WAR ON TERROR: When Bush first uttered this phrase, liberal groups would use "war on terrorism" because they were afraid that using Bush's phrase was too disrespectful to the office of the President (because it was so dumb). Now Democrats use the phrase as a neutral noun describing matter-of-fact policy. The media will not treat any candidate seriously who doesn't buy into this fraudulent initiative.
PUBLIC DOMAIN: No candidate advocates putting parts of the private sector in the public domain, buying into the Bush view that it's better to let the "people" control things. I ask: Since when did we decide that our government isn't "of, for and by" the people and that corporate board rooms are? Any candidate who suggests anything more to the Left than saying the government "has a role" is skewered.
I say let's stop critiquing the MSM. What a monumental waste of time. It's not a democratic body -- they constitute a propaganda tool for the oligarchy. Criticizing the MSM is like blaming a gun for not being able to build a house.
PLEASE, direct people to The Nation, Harpers, Democracy Now, and so on. The MSM will never be as useful.