Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 1824
-
@ nabalzbbfr
[Read the article: Fallout from the Coulter speech]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There is absolutely no comparison. Ann Coulter makes derogatory comments about enemies of the US, e.g. ragheads and John Edwards....
... and Supreme Court justices, journalists, liberals in general, etc.....
... Liberal bloggers call for the death of Dick Cheney, one of the main pillars of the US system of government.
You misspelled "pilla gers"
HTH.
Cheers,
-
Glenn's book
[Read the article: Fallout from the Coulter speech]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Re: Ordering Glenn's book
He's said he wants us to wait.
Specifically, until it is available for shipping. Putting it in the top 10 is more effective if it is immediately available to those that see it there, and want to buy it.
Advance purchases may be nice, but tend to attract those that already know what they want. It would be nice to leave the "headlines" for the time when they will more readily attract those with less exposure to Glenn and his work.
Glenn, correct me if I've mistaken your position.
Cheers,
-
@jack
[Read the article: The right-wing cult of contrived masculinity]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]To put it another way, the Democrats' most "masculine" candidate is Hilary Clinton! That is why John Kerry was deployed to Viet Nam while Bush wasn't, but Bush was seen as the more masculine candidate. Not because Bush had been a "great military warrior", but because no one believed Kerry had the backbone to stare down Kim Jung Il, to go after terrorist organizations with military force, or to make tough decisions based on personal integrity rather than poll results. It's that simple.
IOW, Republicans and their supporters are morons that believe with all their heart things that just ain't so (see, e.g., Creationism and ID, and the proud global climate change nay-sayers, not to mention the hordes of Dubya sycophants that still think that Iraq was the best thing since sliced bread). Do I have it correctly?
Oh ... yeah ... speaking of "star[ing] down Kim Jund [sic] Il", how'd that work out? Ummm ... yeah, nevermind.
Cheers,
-
Ooops
[Read the article: The right-wing cult of contrived masculinity]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"jund" should have been "jung".
-
@m.b.f.
[Read the article: The right-wing cult of contrived masculinity]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well appreciated, but:
Read the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglas. It is the antidote to the mantra of 1984 (e.g. Freedom is slavery, ignorance is strenth)...
Frederick Douglass.
Cheers,
-
@ Glenn Greenwald
[Read the article: Various matters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here][from a comment]:
I listened to the Oral Argument in the Sixth Circuit and the judges were fairly unrecepective to claim that because the administration was not voluntarily complying with FISA, the claims were moot....
Aside from the typo ("unrecepective"), I think you meant "administration was voluntarily complying"....
Cheers,
-
@ "shooter242"
[Read the article: Various matters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Fried Chicken and Watermelon for dinner.
It's the only thing Hillary and Obama didn't say (as far as I know) trying to pander.
I see you're letting your own prejudices show. Well, there's something to be said for being honest and forthright. Ask Ann Coulter....
Cheers,
-
@ chris
[Read the article: Various matters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Standing
They are empowered not to adjudicate any matter that is in dispute, but instead only those cases where one party is injured by the actions of another (hence, the general requirement that a plaintiff prove he has suffered specific/unique injury from a government act in order to have "standing" to challenge the legality of that act).
I understand the reasoning behind this, but shouldn't this be regarded as a factual issue to be decided on the merits, rather than a way to prevent the discovery of the very evidence that could establish standing?
Normally, the allegations in the complaint would be taken on their face absent proof, and discovery would be allowed to determine the actual facts and develop the evidentiary base for trial.
The gummint prevents this by appealing to the "state secrets prvilege" and filing motins for dismissal prior to discovery, and any inquiry into who has been surveilled.
"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he [Yossarian] observed.
"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.
Cheers,
-
@ Glenn Greenwald
[Read the article: Various matters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Standing/Discovery
Arne:
I understand the reasoning behind this, but shouldn't this be regarded as a factual issue to be decided on the merits, rather than a way to prevent the discovery of the very evidence that could establish standing?
Actually, my bad. That was Chris's statement; I closed the italics too early....
But FWIW, I do think that standing should be liberalised a bit (hey, why not just cite Dubya v. Gore when you're writing the appeals brief after they deny standing; Dubya wasn't a Florida voter, and he certainly didn't show even a discriminatory effect, much less the "invidious discrimination" or "discriminatory intent" that some poor black would have to show to get in the door on an "equal protection" claim). I commented on this ("http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/03/better-approach-to-standing-in.html") a little bit over at Balkinization.
Cheers,