Letters to the Editor
prunes
Published Letters: 784
-
@shooter242
[Read the article: The Tom Friedman of 2002 has not gone anywhere]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Relax. Ghandi and Khomeini are just two disparate examples of people that have fully formed principles by the time we are aware of them.
Fair enough point.
The point of that para, is that people cannot be swayed from what beliefs they hold, by pop pyschology as diplomacy.
Also true. What you fail to see here is that Friedman's anthropomorphized "tough guy" and "pussy" countries are the exemplar nonpareil of ungrounded, unrealistic, completely bogus pop psychology posing as policy advice.
This is just simply not how the world works. It is very, very simplistic thinking, astonishingly so, considering where it is published.
He's clearly not a serious thinker, and if you're taking him seriously, neither are you.
-
@shooter242
[Read the article: The Tom Friedman of 2002 has not gone anywhere]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hi shooter. Can I just reiterate what a cretin I think you are? Not because of any personal issue or political bias, but because you keep saying things that just don't make any damn sense.
Hmmm. Perhaps you've missed the part where Obama has made it very clear that he would do everything possible to leave the "stick" where it lies. There is no clearer signal for the rest of the world to ignore whatever else he has to say.
Actually, when Obama was asked on 60 minutes if he would support a military strike on Iran for the ostensible purpose of preventing them from acquiring nuclear weapons, he replied that he would not rule out any such possibility.
Now, for sane people like me, who aren't thrilled at the prospect of a glass Mecca and more dead troops, this ain't good enough. For crazy people like you, this is too wussy of a position, you won't be happy until he threatens to slaughter every last Iranian man, woman, and child. Or so I gather.
Exactly what would Obama have to say to make you happy? Or is there nothing?
-
Defining Down Deviancy
[Read the article: Tom Friedman and Rudy Giuliani on 9/11]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Torture -> Stress Position -> Enhanced Interrogation -> Aggressive Questioning -> Tea Party With Scones
-
@Ralph Kramden
[Read the article: Tom Friedman and Rudy Giuliani on 9/11]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have heard some in the left-wing fringe conspiracy crowd speculate about the Bush administration creating a pretext to postpone or cancel the 2008 elections and retain power. But this is completely relegated to the "insane ranting" pile.
In Giuliani, we have a man who actually pushed for such an action. Doesn't this deserve some scrutiny?
Wow, I don't remember hearing about this, but lo and behold:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/us/politics/21giuliani.html
-
@Derbig Mooser
[Read the article: Tom Friedman and Rudy Giuliani on 9/11]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am Surprised that Mr. Friedman has not shown up in the comments section. He's got a lot of expiating to do.
If Friedman reads anything outside his bubble-world, it ain't much.
Reading people you disagree with is good for your brain.
His brain, as evidenced by recent columns, ain't too good no more.
-
How naive I was.
[Read the article: Interviews with AP executives on the Bilal Hussein travesty]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Me too.
Even more embarrassing, I always assumed if the US moved in a totalitarian direction, it would be some radical socialists (USSR are the bad guys, right?) who would make it happen.
*ouch*
I never imagined that rhetoric could be so far removed from real life as it is in current day Republicans.
-
Anonymous sources
[Read the article: Demand answers from Time magazine]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Anonymous speech and sourcing is essential to democracy. It should always be legally protected.
However, I wouldn't mind if a bunch of well-placed folks started sourcing some complete baloney to folks like Klein, they clearly swallow anything, and maybe a few well-placed embarrassing screw-ups would make these reporters start paying attention to whether or not what they report is factual.
-
@shooter242
[Read the article: Demand answers from Time magazine]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So I'd love to hear from someone how this is not a requirement for individual warrants for targets that MAY be in communication with a US person.
Sure:
It's not. You've read the bill completely backwards. All they have to do is say they're reasonably the two targets are not natural US persons and that they are reasonably believed to be outside the United States.
That is to say ALL the targets. Assumed intent is not sufficient. I need to see how this can't be construed in court to mean ALL the targets.
Dude, you are no lawyer, not by a long shot. You "need" to see that?
No one is going to be able to convince you, because you've already made up your mind about what the bill says.
It doesn't say what you think it does. Learn to read.
-
@shooter242
[Read the article: Demand answers from Time magazine]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's official, this has gone past criticism into stalking. Get a grip people, this is getting pathological.
Keep up the good work.
I like how shooter thinks that googling someone's official bio on the website of their current employer is an egregious violation of privacy, but is just pissing himself trying to get his neighbors wiretapped.
-
@chris
[Read the article: Demand answers from Time magazine]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Without changing the "anonymous source" system -- what's to stop this eact same scenario from happening again and again?
Hopefully, Klein gets fired for malcompetence in a very high-profile and embarrassing way, and other reporters start thinking a little harder about their career paths.
-
@shooter242
[Read the article: Bad stenographers]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The part I don't get is why Glenn and most of the commenters are willing to crucify Klein, who seems to be in line with the majority of the liberal orthodoxy.
Klein? I'm absolutely boggled as to what you think "liberal orthodoxy" entails.
And your continual ascription of Glenn's commentator's positions to some ideology is nothing more than your own projection. I imagine I share little ideologically with most commentators here other than a desire for honesty and professionalism in our press and government.
And that's enough.
Apparently ideological purity is more important than pushing foward an agenda where possible.
Only idiots push agendas forward without thinking about them and only dishonest idiots ascribe all opposition to "ideological purity."
Maybe wiretapping for terrorists is just a BAD IDEA, technically. I certainly am convinced that that is the case, as simple arguments in probability theory show.