Letters to the Editor
The Voice of Reason
Published Letters: 391 Editor's Choice: 41
-
They have been falsely framing this war for a lot longer than recent
[Read the article: Everyone we fight in Iraq is now "al-Qaida"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I addressed this over a year ago in this response on the death of Zarqawi. They have always been playing up the Al Qaida spin. The term Al Qaida means "the base" and was originally derived from "the database" of Mujahadeen that had been trained by Americans. It does not refer to a specific fighting force, nor a specific group of people, nor a specific ideological following. If you are going to call them on mis-nomenclature, then know how far you should be going.
http://letters.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/06/08/zarqawi/permalink/6ee671073f8663f4570a52fb0bdcb330.html
-
It is what he says...not how he says it.
[Read the article: Mitt Romney's biggest brand]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It has been a tired mechanism of the main stream media to critique candidates based on looks, how they talk, and how they comport themselves. Please don't continue this trend as it undermines the publics need for useful information.
Mitt makes an awkward attempt at connecting with youth (who do not need to be spoken to in a special jingo infused language as they are just as intelligent and literate as the rest of us.) His sleeves are rolled up. His sleeves are rolled down. Whatever.
Mitt has declared in the last few days that he is all for Guantanamo torture camp, that the administration is making a mistake if they are going to close it, and that the prisoners there do not deserve the right of habeas corpus. Now in any other election campaign (remember the "scream"), this statement would be a campaign killer and land on the front page of every news source. Basically, this candidate, is more pro torture, more the extra judicial handling of enemy combatants, and more anti-Geneva conventions than the creeps who invented and built the Guantanamo prisons themselves. The Bush administration is trying to back away from this serious mistake yet Mitt says keep going down this dark path.
I'd think that is news.
This information doesn't even show up in this article. How are the American people supposed to be informed? Maybe he needs to scream real loud after propping up a gulag?
-
You people are sheeple
[Read the article: Standards of American justice under George W. Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"We need to be the good guys again."
What makes you think we were ever the good guys? How little you all know about history. About imperialism, proxy wars, economic warefare, exporting garbage and importing the world's resources. Screw all of you simpletons who view Guantanamo as a "current administration," or "Neo-con," or "republican" issue. We used to throw prisoners out of helicopters in Vietnam. We used to hook up electric generators to prisoner's balls in Korea. Our soldiers raped the enemy and civilians during WWII. Wake up people.
If you want to right wrongs, at least go at this task with your eyes wide open.
Mitt Romney just stated a few days ago that he does not agree that the administration should close Guantanamo, that it should be expanded, and that the prisoners there (let's not ever call them detainees please) do not deserve a right of habeas corpus.
I'd think that would be front page news. It was not even mentioned in the msm. I culled it from transcripts of his speech and noticed it was only mentioned on a CNN blog of the campaigns.
-
How about we start thinking in "threes" or "fours" for a change?
[Read the article: The Supreme Court slams right, but Scalia wants more]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is fraud to suggest that the supreme court is divided amongst "conservatives" and "progressives." Anyone who simplifies the court this way is playing into that fraud, and has most likely never read an actual supreme court decision or the individual opinions expressed by its members. The supreme court's duty to the American people is to be the final arbiter of the constitution (a living document if you will) and a balance between the power of the federal government and that of the states. I.e. this is primarily an arbitration of a tug of war is between states and federal...not "left" and "right." Sometimes "leanings" come in to play when determining what liberties the constitution affords, and what due process is available as a remedy. I would ask any reader here to define "progressive" and define "conservative" in reference to the interpretation of the constitution. You'd be surprised at how your interpretations don't gell with the actual court's opinions or supposed "leanings".
On anther note: Those assuming that the "people" or the "working class" or the "laborers" or the "progressives" or the "proles" (or what ever anachronistic term you want to impart on people) are going to rise up in opposition to oppression...need to wake up. The struggle we are in should no longer be couched in such terms as it wrongly implies certain precepts. That there is definition to the term "progressive" or "conservative" and that people...if just pushed a little further...will rise up in revolution. That battle already happened and guess what...the people lost. Expecting the consumerist sheeple of this nation to rise up to do anything other than cheer on a local sports team, is the definition of delusional. People only rise up in true opposition to unnatural authority when pushed to the extreme of deprivation of the actual necessities of life. After their revolution they quickly devolve back to the sheep that they are, when those basic needs are met (some limited form of: food, air, shelter, life.) To make typed speeches about "pendulums" swinging or the "what goes up must come down"s of physics belies the fact that we actually live in a multi dimensional world that contains more than a left/right, up/down paradigm. Shoot a rocket into space beyond the gravitational pull of the planet... and wait for it to "come down" and you'll see what I mean.
-
Kudos Helen
[Read the article: Interview with Helen Thomas]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'd rather be off the wall with you, than on the wall with any of the rest of them.
Thank you for your service to the people of this country, democracy, the free press, and holding government accountable.