Letters to the Editor
Reality-based Liberal
Published Letters: 774 Editor's Choice: 100
-
Taliesan & red_gti2000
[Read the article: Who would the GOP rather face?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am all for efficient government, but the average American's idea of government waste is way off.
Again, given the amount of money we take in for discretionary spending, you could cut 100 percent of everything but defense -- good, bad, wasted, efficient, whatever -- and you'd still have a tough time balancing the budget.
We have bigger problems than waste. It sounds good to say "cut waste" -- everyone hates waste. But it isn't an answer (unless by waste you mean war spending).
Again, Social Security pays for itself pretty well (the defense budget has to change every year, so I'd say SS being good for 35 years out is pretty spectacular). A small tweak and it could go on many more years. On top of that, it is incredibly efficient -- it is probably one of the most waste-free and successful government programs in human history.
-
The opus challenge
[Read the article: Obama says Clinton ad "straight out of the Republican playbook"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]- Campaign Clinton has said that the Democratic frontrunner isn't as qualified to be president as the GOP nominee (but he can be her VP bitch).
- Campaign Clinton has suggested that your children my die in their beds from some foreign attack if Obama is at the helm of our military.
- Campaign Clinton had denigrated the states in which she lost ("oh they're small and red anyhow," "they're 'undemocratic' caucuses," "they're mostly black," "they're not blue collar enough").
- Campaign Clinton has called Obama "Ken Starr" because he called for the release of his opponent's tax records -- just as Clinton did in 2000.
- Campaign Clinton enlisted the dead Ann Richards in campaign
ads, against the objections of Richards' sons.
I'm not saying Obama is pure. But given the dirt he could be throwing at Clinton, he has done an amazing job of going negative only when responding to Clinton attacks. Even on the tax records stuff you will notice he isn't making charges; he's just asking questions.
-
@ Opus
[Read the article: Obama says Clinton ad "straight out of the Republican playbook"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I was obviously paraphrasing throughout, but accurately. Here is what Clinton said after LA:
"You had a very strong and very proud African-American electorate, which I totally respect and understand."
-
Obama won along racial lines?
[Read the article: A look at exit polls from the Mississippi Democratic primary]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sorry if someone pointed this out, but it bears repeating, given that NPR and the NYT (and therefore may others) are propagating the idea that this primary shows trouble for Obama because of the racial balance in the vote.
Talk about gymnastics. Clinton lost along racial lines. Obama's voters (70 percent black / 30 percent white) is much more racially mixed than Clinton's (90/10). In a state that's 70 percent black and 30 percent white, and which is the most racially divided in the union, this is a pretty good result for Obama -- especially when 13 percent of voters were Republican (who must be nearly 100 percent white and who went for Clinton by wide margins).
It's so bad that NPR was spinning this as a loss for Obama: "But aides to Obama said they're just happy to pick up some delegates and are ready to move on."
Where's that pro-Obama/anti-Hillary coverage that everyone talks about?
-
@ djmartinlv
[Read the article: Misadventures in logical reasoning -- and lessons learned from the Spitzer scandal]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You are wrong. While Spitzer is a hypocrite, that is not why he is being forced to resign. If that were so, no one would be in elected office right now.
-
Reece0
[Read the article: Misadventures in logical reasoning -- and lessons learned from the Spitzer scandal]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Responding to your three points:
1) Yes, he broke the law. But I think Glenn's point is that he committed a victimless crime under an archaic statute while Bush breaks major laws that are more fundamentally central to his job and that has millions and millions of victims (hundreds of thousands of which actually die). Spitzer "obviously" has to go, but it's too far out there to think Bush should go.
2) I think you can argue a right. Why can't a woman sell her body? It belongs to her at least as much as cattle futures belong to some investor, right?
3) I don't think Glenn distinguished on price -- only willingness on the part of the woman. Whether a woman sells her body for a dime or a house and kids, that should be fine by anyone who respects freedom -- so long as it's her choice.
-
Judging by the 5 things up there...
[Read the article: Introducing 5 Things!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...I find it unlikely that this will be of any use to me.
Two of the five are on Spitzer (one on what his call girl looked like!)
-
Aycharaych and Nancy Ott
[Read the article: Misadventures in logical reasoning -- and lessons learned from the Spitzer scandal]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I feel sorry for the nation, that apparently has an obligation to be outraged over elected officials' private sexual decisions.
I have never met Spitzer's wife and kids, but if it's my responsibility to care about the families of every public figure, I've got a shitload of dirty laundry to go trolling through!
-
@ AnnieW
[Read the article: Misadventures in logical reasoning -- and lessons learned from the Spitzer scandal]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I do not think all marriage is a trade of sex for riches and I'm sorry if I implied that. That is not my experience either. As another poster pointed out, I was only saying it is none of my business if someone does marry for money, or simply has sex for direct cash payment.
-
And this is news, why?
[Read the article: Report? What report?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm losing patience with "outrage" over the status quo.
"Oh my god, the sun rose again today!"
Liberal websites would do well to start organizing dissent. Simply reporting what should be unacceptable on a regular basis does more to normalize this kind of behavior than it does to counter it.
Reporters might argue that it is their job to bring the public the truth, and what the public does with that is up to it. I understand this argument, but it is increasingly anachronistic. There is no party or mainstream media to organize the people -- on core civil liberty/checks-and-balances issues, these organs have joined with the obstacles to democracy and freedom. That leaves left-wing internet gathering points as the best tools for democratic revolt. I ask the managers of those gathering points: are you going to take the next step, or are you just faking your outrage?