Letters to the Editor
_zack_
Published Letters: 372 Editor's Choice: 5
-
@IngSoc
[Read the article: Tom Friedman and Rudy Giuliani on 9/11]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It’s not just Iran that is interested in developing nuclear power. The New York Times is reporting that nearly a dozen countries in that region are looking at drawing up nuclear plans for “the day when the flow of oil dries up.”
”The newly interested states include Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen and the seven sheikdoms of the United Arab Emirates — Abu Dhabi, Ajman, Dubai, Al Fujayrah, Ras al Khaymah, Sharjah, and Umm al Qaywayn…
They generally ask what they need to do for the introduction of power,” said R. Ian Facer, a nuclear power engineer who works for the I.A.E.A. at its Vienna headquarters. The agency teaches the basics of nuclear energy. In exchange, states must undergo periodic inspections to make sure their civilian programs have no military spinoffs.”
The administration’s response to Iran’s desire for this technology is to compare them to Nazis and call their leader next “Hitler” – it looks like there is a whole line of “Hitlers” in our future.
That’s why we need a coherent policy on this topic. So far, we’ve not got much beyond “bomb, bomb, bomb” lyrics that don’t even address the real issue.
http://tinyurl.com/3agefb
-
@IngSoc
[Read the article: Tom Friedman and Rudy Giuliani on 9/11]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Iran is a maverick, whereas the others "play well" with the West, for the most part.
Certainly, deposing “our” Shah has something to do with it, but when you read PNAC it’s quite clear that Iran just happens to be on their “to do” list.
Certainly, Saudi Arabia and to a lesser extent, Egypt have “played well” with what U.S. administrations have desired.
Yet, notice that both of them are on Podhoretz’s list of governments he wants overthrown “by force if necessary.”
People like him are looking for excuses for more war, and they’re not trying to hide it. If the Podhoretzes of the world are marginalized – sent back to think tanks that no one takes seriously, then we can start dealing with even “maverick” nations.
But we really need to lose the “crazy” first, though.
-
He was trying to appeal to those "in the wilderness" of this country.
[Read the article: Brian Williams: "Marriage is under attack"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is rather a bizarre claim, but what I think he’s referring to is fact that people rarely stay married for any length of time these days. Thus, it is under “attack” by an epidemic of “divorce.”
He doesn’t say or even imply who is to blame, but the usual suspects when such “facts” are thrown out include a variety of factors that fall under the rubric of “modernism” – easy access to divorce, more “secularism” in society with the lessening of “traditional values” (e.g. more extra-marital affairs) and, for some people, the acceptance of gays in society falls in that category as well.
I think Williams was intending to say “things ain’t the way they used to be” but it came out in the garbled cliché “marriage is under attack” that has been appropriated by the religious right in this country. Methinks he’s been listening to too much Rush Limbaugh and talk radio (he admits being a fan):
“…if I'm in the car, I will listen to Rush. And he will tell you I've been listening for years. I think it's my duty to listen to Rush. I think Rush has actually yet to get the credit he is due, because his audience for so many years felt they were in the wilderness of this country. No one was talking to them.
Williams, by using this cliche is the expressing the sentiment of those who feel “in the wilderness” of this country. By using this expression, he’s trying to “talk to them” – the people who listen to talk radio – he’s trying to connect with them, and share their feelings (angst, disgust, fear) about modern society.
That’s my take anyway (although I haven’t had my coffee yet) and it is, at the very least, a “bizarre” assertion by anchor that really had no place in his story.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200501240007
-
We're under attack alright - by The Village Press
[Read the article: Brian Williams: "Marriage is under attack"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Williams is hardly alone in the Beltway media of not only internalizing but of promoting the mindset of the “religious right.”
Chris Matthews, oozing conventional Beltway wisdom, lectures us on why voters need to feel “under attack” :
“You know, if you say circle the wagons to anybody, that's a great way to get them rallied, that's a way to get them juiced up, and they may vote more frequently. They may get out there and vote, where if they don't feel under attack they're not going to vote. It's human nature.
So, for Matthews, scaring people with false attacks upon them is not only legitimate -- it is mandatory for political system to work, otherwise no one would vote.
And then Matthews brings it home, adopting the Christian Right’s religious manifesto (replete with its scheme to get their voters to the polls) and delivering it as an accepted Beltway “fact”:
“I do believe there is a campaign against religion in this country and we hear it all the time. I think you're right, that's true, it's just true.”
See, religion is under attack – even the “liberal” Chris Matthews said so. And marriage is under attack too – even the “liberal” Brian Williams said so.
This why Digby said this yesterday, and it’s worth repeating:
“The Democratic campaigns need to remember that they are battling not only the Republicans but the entire Village press.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12079836/
http://tinyurl.com/29udvg