Letters to the Editor
azdirk
Published Letters: 95 Editor's Choice: 6
-
Cheney's defense
[Read the article: Cheney's politics of fear and smear]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Cheney claims the Democratic criticism of what is at best misrepresentation of the intellligence that was gathered and at worst an outright lie is irresponsible. What kind of a Orwellian world is this that a lie is "responsible" and the truth "irresponsible"?
-
O'Reilly and Letterman
[Read the article: Toadies to the rescue!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]O'Reilly is no more a journalist than I am. As far as being insulted by Letterman, he simply received a taste of his own medicine. O'Reilly's greatest fault is that he takes himself seriously.
-
Hearsay
[Read the article: Bush talks accountability, then refuses to turn over documents]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"I said this is what he said. Take it or leave it! Trust me!" Right!
-
Rome and Athens
[Read the article: The dictator defense]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]During emergencies both Rome and Athens appointed persons to govern who had "temporary" absolute power, which was to be relinquished when the crisis was over. There were, however, no objective criteria for determining what was (or was not) a crisis. The crises became of longer and longer duration until they became permanent. Two words in the English language refer to these officials with "temporary" powers: dictator and tyrant. We need to beware of those who use tyranny to protect us from tyranny.
-
I'D VOTE FOR HER, EXCEPT:
[Read the article: The Hillary juggernaut]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]the Hillary bashers have done her in. Men don't like her because she's smarter than most of them. Women don't like her because she didn't kick Bill out of the house for his transgressions. The press loves her because they can easily make people dislike her. Look what they did to Ed Muskie and Howard Dean!
-
Isn't marriage a a civil union?
[Read the article: State of the unions]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am perplexed by the term "marriage" as opposed to "civil union." As I understand it. Marriage is a civil union carried out by an agent of the state (judge, justice of the peace, clergyman) and licensed by the state. In the eyes of the law, a person is married if he or she (1) has a valid license and (2) is married by someone who is considered qualified to do so by the state. In other words, a religious marriage is a civil union as well. I can clearly remembering my father, a minister, declaring a couple married by the power vested in him by the state. That marriage is a civil union is bolstered by the fact that disolving a marriage is purely a legal, not a religious, process as far as the state is concerned. An annulment or divorce by a religious body without a legal divorce is meaningless if one of the persons involved applies for a marriage license later. In the eyes of the state, he or she would be headed for a bigamous marriage. I do not quarrel with the right of religious denominations to refuse to marry those they feel are not qualified. In fact, that right should be closely guarded. But no religious group should dictate to the state who can or cannot be joined in what is a contractual obligation by both parties. Let the state determine who is qualified to be married. Let religious groups determine who is qualified to be married in religious ceremonies.
-
The amazing hubris
[Read the article: Rumsfeld's thumpin']
[Read more letters about this article: Here] -
Impeachment is a political act.
[Read the article: Bush's criminal confessions]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Mr. Everet misunderstands what impeachment is. It is a political act couched in judicial form for which the only punishment is removal from office. Any crimes committed would be dealt with later by the courts. Ironically, the courts would extend to the perpetrators the very protections they (the perpetrators) deny to others. When Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon it freed Nixon from the possibility of a trial. As a footnote, the reality is that the "high crimes and misdeameanors" is pretty much anything that Congress says it is.
-
What is really disturbing to me.
[Read the article: Maybe Bush didn't back down on wiretaps]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What really disturbs me is that the executive is using a "crisis" to extend its powers at the expense of the other branches of government. Other republics have given absolute power to leaders in timesof crisis. Rome gave up its powers to a "dictator." Athens gave its powers to a "tyrant." Eventually both of these republics lost their self-governing powers to a single person. Has this lesson been learned?
-
Ralph Waldo Emerson
[Read the article: Two long years to go]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Emerson has been quoted as saying, "Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." If this is true, Bush qualifies for small-mindedness with his new Iraq plan. It is simply more of the same. It is fixing a leaky boat by taking a saw and cutting out the hole in the hull.
As to his so-called health care plan, the very wealthy would be untouched by his so-called reforms. They have so much money they don't need health insurance. The money would come from middle income people like me (a retired teacher with medicare and a good supplemental plan.) The wealthy would be immune to his "reforms."
As to balancing the budget, the single largest item in the budget (the elephant in the room) is funding the debt. Cutting all entitlements, including social security, would do very little to balance the budget. To balance the budget, a tax increase is essential.
-
Was Lincoln a traitor?
[Read the article: Protesting the war -- not just for giant puppets anymore!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]During the Mexican War, Lincoln protested the war by his "spot resolutions" in Congress, demanding that President Polk show the spot on American soil where American blood had been shed by Mexican soldiers. In his war message to Congress, Polk claimed that Mexican troops had "shed American blood on American soil." Lincoln was asking the 19th century equivalent of where are the WMD's, the biological and chemical weapons, etc. Since Congress had actually declared war on Mexico, which was done neither in the case of Vietman nor in Iraq,
he came much closer to the Constitutional definition of treason than any of the protestors in Washington. It is time that the imperialists and neocons actually understand what treason really is.
-
The press was not amused?
[Read the article: The Fix]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Since when does the press think that people have to talk to them? We do not exist to "amuse" the press!