Letters to the Editor
Well, that's all for now.
Published Letters: 84 Editor's Choice: 10
-
Appreciate the info.
[Read the article: Salesgenie's Super Bowl success]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not sure that I'd describe equal-opportunity negative stereotyping as progress per se, but I get the point. I only saw the panda commercial, and honestly, could not believe it was accepted by the network or that someone would spend that much money to air it. At any rate, I appreciate learning a little bit about who/what was behind the ad I saw.
Speaking of stereotyping and business, I wonder how the disgusting t-shirts Abercrombie and Fitch sold in the relatively recent past (likely for the same reasons as Mr. Gupta's base advertisements), and the media attention that garnered A&F, ultimately impacted that company's bottom line?
-
Onward! . . . but . . . NO SPELUNKERS ALLOWED beyond this point!!!
[Read the article: Goodbye, Super Tuesday]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'll mostly-gladly vote for either remaining Democratic candidate in the general election in November. But since the topic at hand is the next round of primaries, here's a question I'd like directed to both candidates at the next debate forum, whenever that might be:
"Do you promise to let the voting process run it's full course, and should there be voting irregularities, to fight tooth-and-nail in the courts if necessary, rather than make a concession that is not yours-alone to make in the supposed-best-interests of the nation, bipartisanship, political-collegiality, or (new this time around) race/gender relations?"
After our recent failures to protect the integrity of the voting process (not to mention the ongoing failure of the Democratic majority in Congress to comprehensively address this most-central issue), any equivocation whatsoever in answering the above question would lose my vote.
No offense to spelunkers, but I don't want any cavers on the next Democratic ticket.
-
Nothing to see here folks, move along.
[Read the article: Uncovering the truth about CIA torture tapes]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I favor the suggestion made by some that any government official acting in an official capacity be considered to be under oath when speaking. Imagine the difference that would have made to all statements made by members of our Executive Branch ... heck, for the last several decades probably, but especially during the last 7 long years. Of course, a press corps content to parrot official lines would still be misinforming the public overall by not asking appropriate follow-up questions or at least reporting them if they dare ask. Take for example, this beautiful quote in today's news from the White House's Dana Perino, from an article stating that the President would veto a ban on waterboarding. Notice the use of the words "in this" rather than "by this".
"The president does not favor torture. The president favors making sure we do all these programs within the law," she said, adding that "all the interrogations that have taken place in this country have been done in a legal way." (emphasis added)
And, the notion that Bush "favors making sure we do all these programs within the law" does not inspire great confidence in this citizen. You?
-
The $2 trillion question
[Read the article: Killing "Bubba" from the skies]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So why wasn't Saddam Hussein removed from power via a fleet of such drones and economy-sized bombs?
-
Looking forward to an Even Bigger Brother
[Read the article: Killing "Bubba" from the skies]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Some day remote bombs, under guidance from our support bases in countries around the globe who were made offers they couldn't refuse in the best interests of their national security, raining down from the sky upon "suspected militants" and their unlucky associates, will seem as quaint as the spreading of napalm over villages with foliage problems. Everyone will sleep so much better when suspected militants, suspected political opponents, suspected economic rabble-rousers, etc. are handled via focused pulses from our satellite space fleet with total global coverage, including right here at home. Eliminating such societal problems outright, in case you're wondering, is just so much more cost-effective than stunning and capturing, detaining, arresting, trying and convicting and other such messy tasks involving any actual interaction with actual people ... er, sorry ... suspected militants. Those actual tasks could be done if found necessary, but after all, there's no such thing as a virtual tax dollar unless you work in the White House.
-
Questions & thoughts
[Read the article: Killing "Bubba" from the skies]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't think Mark Benjamin addressed the following in his article (and perhaps wasn't allowed to), but it would be interesting to know the answer at any rate.
Does the U.S. military need to be in control of the air space above whatever territory these drones are being used in for them to be used in the manner described in the article?
I can imagine such drones being used above "enemy territory" even if that air space were not in the control of the military, but probably with a lesser degree of success than that described in the article. However, the article is talking about territories we DO control both on the ground and in the air and the drones and related methods are being deployed in furtherance of occupations. What say the U.N. and human rights organizations about that? If the targets in the occupied populaces are watched for such lenghthy periods, why isn't some form of police action and trial/incarceration the goal and outcome? Conducting such surveil and kill missions seems to go beyond the "cover my back" role they *may* be more appropriate for.
Separately, I wonder if those who are reassured by the participation of a (prosecutorial) lawyer would feel the same if this ever becomes the way we police our streets?
And, lastly, wouldn't it be nice if we could get some of those tech-savvy Air Force personnel to come up with a system for their bosses in the White House and/or RNC to prevent the accidental deletion of their e-mails?