Letters to the Editor
Kevin C
Published Letters: 140 Editor's Choice: 23
-
Democracy Now interview with Chavez
[Read the article: Cindy Sheehan's wrong turn]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ok, so do you really think that this is a representation of the truth any more than having Dick Cheney interviewed on Fox News?
Sample question from transcript:
"JUAN GONZALEZ: Mr. President, there's no longer any doubt that the majority of the people in Venezuela support your government. But there are still those in Venezuela who say that you are using that majority support to stamp out the dissident views. Recently, I participated in a forum at Columbia University with Gustavo Cisnero, the head of Venevision, where he insisted that you are not allowing a free press to continue to function in Venezuela. I asked him, well what is the press of Venezuela doing organizing political coups? But I'd like you to talk about the role of the press in your democratic revolution and the importance of the press in general in communicating ideas to the mass of the people."
Geez, even people in his own party and Lula have criticized him for yanking the licenses of private television stations.
-
re: women will always be able to get a guy to volunteer as long as men can't separate good sex from potential parenthood
[Read the article: Women want brawn for now, brains for good?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I suppose some guys haven't heard of condoms. Not 100% effective, but if used properly they do do a pretty good job of reducing the risk of potential parenthood. That or a vasectomy.
-
LBS
[Read the article: Cindy Sheehan's wrong turn]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks, I've enjoyed discussing the points about Chavez also. I don't deny that he does do good, but I think he's also lucky that the price of oil is high right now. My issue is that regardless of whether you mean well or do right by the poor, I don't like rulers who don't seem to respect the rule of law (e.g. I dislike Bush and Cheney). To me it seems the temptation of power is such that even if you intend to do well in the beginning, if things go wrong and there are limited checks on you then things can really go wrong. A big example of that is Mugabe in Zimbabwe, who is more willing to destroy the economy of his country than consider that it might be time to retire (in his 80s no less).
So that does argue for keeping impeachment "on the table," but I think Pelosi is right to avoid the issue because a) she probably is unsure whether she has the votes in her caucus in order to impeach b) I'm sure she knows that 2/3 of the Senate won't vote to convict--and probably Droopy Dog Joe Lieberman would defect over the perceived excess c) it is indeed unseemly for her to call for impeachment when both the President and Vice President deserve it and she's in line after them.
Which does raise an interesting question--if Cheney is removed, does Bush get to appoint a successor before he is impeached? If so, would he appoint someone who was a candidate (and would they take it). Then would Congress impeach him knowing that they just gave themselves a Republican incumbent to run against in 2008? Or would Congress remove them both leaving us with President Pelosi--and is that a legislative coup? Would it be perceived as one?
At least Bush is gone at the end of his term, thanks to the rule of law in this country. In the meantime, I think if Congress wants to impeach someone they should start with Gonzales.
-
Hudson
[Read the article: Cindy Sheehan's wrong turn]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]On RCTV as a threat to free speech--I don't think that it is credible that yanking RCTV's license wouldn't have a chilling effect on free speech. Granted the owners did probably cross the line numerous times (although Clinton death lists were brought up numerous times in the media without the US Government closing any media outlets down), but they didn't open the license up to bidding by another company, they replaced the channel with yet another government run channel. That doesn't exactly increase free speech.
In terms of his adherence to the Constitution, it'd be more impressive to me had the Constitution not been rewritten by his party. Chavez' Constituent Assembly was used to bypass the existing Congress in place after his election. I'm sure you wouldn't condone Bush having set up a parallel assembly after his reelection in order to rewrite the Constitution. Plus numerous steps that his electoral commission took during the recall campaign against him (such as attempting to not hold the recall campaign by questioning signatures) seem more like the Republicans in Florida after the 2000 election rather than a committed democrat.
Part of what makes the US government great, in my opinion, is that, despite the questionable legality of some things done by the Bush administration, we still have checks and balances in place. Chavez' instincts are to centralize power with him to a degree that would make Dick Cheney's mouth water. From attempts to control the Caracas police department to changing the curriculum in elementary schools, the Bolivarian Revolution is not something that we would consider normal in the US (especially if it were being inflicted on us by the Republicans to support their goals).
A wanna be strongman is something that I don't see as progress, regardless of his (or her) goals.
-
Samson141
[Read the article: Heck of a job, Chertoff!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If we can wage wars on drugs and childhood obesity why not a war on a tactic?
As long as you can have a "czar" for something you can have a "war" on it.
So much for us being safer and al-qaida being "on the run." Or maybe Chertoff is just an idiot.
-
Which sea is Canada over?
[Read the article: Ask the pilot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Just wondering.
Someone probably asked that already, but I'm too lazy to read through all the comments.
-
jebldmm
[Read the article: Ask the pilot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You can be concerned about being packed in and not getting meals, but actually safety has been getting better--we went for years after 2001 with no commercial airline fatalities in the US.
So I wouldn't be concerned about safety, at least.
-
Air travel is so so much cheaper than it was
[Read the article: Ask the pilot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In reading the letters section, on solution was to cap airport capacity even if it raised prices "20%."
The Economist had a survey on air travel--airfares today are around twice what they were in 1968. In the meantime consumer prices have almost quintupled. If it wasn't for deregulation air fares wouldn't be 20% higher, arguably they'd be 4x what they are now...