Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 9
-
alternative?
[Read the article: Domenech apologizes for plagiarism -- and for "obfuscation" in defense]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"And while they put all their energy and venom into this campaign, it is worth remembering that for all the noise -- they have yet to present a real alternative to an America that rests on the foundation of freedom, free markets and family."
That, of course, is the biggest slander of all: The idea that liberals WANT an "alternative" to freedom and family.
Those of us who want the administration to stop spying on us without warrants, to stop imprisoning American citizens without charges, and to stop torturing our fellow human beings -- we aren't looking for an "alternative" to freedom. What conservatives are offering us is the "alternative". We want the real thing.
And the gays and lesbians who want to marry and adopt children -- they aren't looking for an "alternative" to family. They're looking for the real thing.
And as for the third topic, free markets: Yes, I want an alternative to the free market in political favors that the Republicans have established in Washington. Sign me up for that one.
-
two reasons
[Read the article: What is the rationale behind the prescription drug laws?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I see two types of drugs that should be controlled by doctors rather than patients. One, which other people have already mentioned, are drugs that affect judgment. You may be a competent adult when you choose to start taking them, but you may not be competent to choose to stop.
The second are drugs whose effectiveness will be lost to the community if they are over-used by individuals. Antibiotics, for example. The medical profession reserves certain antibiotics as a last line of defense. But if individuals had the right to self-prescribe, those drugs would be widely used and bugs would develop resistance to them.
Now, most drugs don't fit that description at all. I don't know why they need to be controlled.
-
Why Bush was happy
[Read the article: Gonzales' Fan Club of One]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Gonzales went to Congress and continued the cover-up. He continued to lie and obfuscate. He didn't reveal any of the secrets that he knows.
Omerta holds. No wonder the don is proud.
-
Strategy
[Read the article: The GOP is the party of the Iraq war]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Here's something I've been wondering ever since 2003, when no candidate with a then-higher name recognition than Dean would criticize the war: If you're a long-shot candidate anyway, doesn't it make sense to get out in front on some major issue and hope that events prove you right?
Right now, that would suggest a Chuck Hagel candidacy. I know, you're going to say that any criticism of the war would doom a Republican in the primaries, but that's months in the future. Right now it would be Hagel vs. Everybody Else about the war. What if by December even most Republicans are seeing things differently?
The message is obvious: Iraq is an anvil that will pull down the whole Republican Party, dooming the nation to at least four years of liberal taxes and regulations, not to mention liberal judges. Only Chuck can ride to the rescue.
-
how about...
[Read the article: National Review's new tough guy, Mark Hemingway]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Does This War Make Me Look Fat?
The Insecure Manhood of Mr. Right-wing
-
Slow down
[Read the article: David Brooks and the deceitful tactics of the Beltway pundit]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn,
I love your stuff, but you're starting to show symptoms of writing too fast. You're opening yourself up to unnecessary arguments and you're repeating yourself too much.
First, as only Cicero seemed to notice, Brooks does quote polling data. He cherry picks it, and ignores polls that would directly address the questions he's raising, but he does quote a poll. By not appearing to notice that, and by quoting him at length but leaving the data out, you give critics an opening to dismiss your larger point, which is valid. If Brooks deigns to respond, he can do that whole arch bloggers-don't-know-what-they're-talking-about thing.
Second, you could write this column in half as many words and not leave any ideas out. It would be more impressive. As it stands, how many different times do you say that Beltway Pundits substitute their own opinions for the average Americans? I count six, though the exact number is a judgment call.
Slow down, Glenn. You're a better writer than this.
-
I'm confused
[Read the article: Is Briana Waters a terrorist?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The fire took place in May, 2001. The Patriot Act was passed after September 11, 2001. So any change in the definition of terrorism in the Patriot Act is irrelevant to whether this act was terrorism. It's that whole "ex post facto law" thing.
So, is the article claiming that the Patriot Act really made a legal difference in this case? Or just that the overall tone of society has changed and the Justice Department takes this stuff more seriously now?
-
fine if she continues, but ...
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's tough week]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Walsh presents Clinton's strategy as: keep campaigning and wait for Obama to make a mistake. If only that were true, I'd be fine with her campaigning all the way to the convention.
But in fact her strategy is to tear Obama down any way she can. That's what has to stop, if we don't want McCain to become president.
Second point: I don't know what definition of "lie" allows Walsh to say that the Bosnia thing wasn't a lie. Clinton said it. It wasn't true. She knew it wasn't true. I don't know what kind of semantic dance can get her out of that.
-
Let's remake the rules after the game is almost over
[Read the article: Why Hillary Clinton should be winning]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]because my candidate is losing.
This kind of crap didn't work when I was five, and it doesn't work now either.