Letters to the Editor
abudabu
Published Letters: 3 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Bloomberg's Support for Bush and Ties With the Neocons
[Read the article: Obama-Bloomberg '08?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This should disgust anyone who has been following Bloomberg - finance tycoon, Iraq War booster, Bush-cheerleader, and Neocon ally, before the polls suggested a new strategy.
Glen Greenwald ably debunks the myth of Bloomberg as trans-partisan savior:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/31/bloomberg/, with the usual sharp pen and truckload of eye-raising quotations. And need we remind readers who think of him as centrist or independent because he was elected by supposedly liberal NYC voters that they're the ones who elected Rudy "Freedom is Authority" Giuliani?
Were Obama to select this man as running mate, I'd consider that to seriously tarnish his ticket.
-
File under "I know you are, but what am I?"
[Read the article: Kiss my ass]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]No discussion of homophobia is complete without a mention of the research of American psychologist Henry E. Adams who found that 80% of homophobic men exhibited signs of homosexual arousal. Applying "penile plethysmography" (the measurement of penile circumference) to subjects watching homosexual acts, Adams found that homophobes exhibited a several-fold larger increase in circumference compared to non-homophobes:
http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf
We need to remind the homophobes, very publicly and frequently, that they are probably gay (or bi) until these idiots shut up and let others live their lives the way they choose.
-
In praise of speculators
[Read the article: Oil executives: "What do they know?"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Are the oil speculators really so bad?
Let's assume for the sake of argument that higher prices really are the result of activity by futures traders - and not a reflection of current real demand outstripping supply. Aren't the speculators simply rationally anticipating future shortage? In the end, the consequences match the goals of policy makers concerned about energy supply:
- Consumers curtail their energy use
- Markets are incentivized to develop alternative energy resources
- Policy makers have public support to push through energy policies
In other words, the side effect of speculation is to promote progressive energy policies in advance of the real crisis (when we actually have a supply shortfall). Isn't this exactly how we'd want things to happen in an ideal world?
Let's note that scientists have been unable to mobilize the populace to do much to change their consumption habits, and politicians have had little support to implement progressive energy policy. Politics requires crisis.
Would consumers actually curtail their energy usage without being forced to? Would politicians be able to push progressive energy policies? Would as much investment capital be available for alternative energy were gas prices not so high? Isn't it better that all these things happen now rather than just when oil supplies are actually vanishing?
It strikes me we should be thankful for the speculators who've managed to achieve through trades what the wise and outspoken could not through words.