Letters to the Editor
Kitt
Published Letters: 2950
-
@Anon about Iran's children
[Read the article: Columbia to be punished for hosting the new Hitler enemy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You're basically accusing some of us of backing Iran's every human rights abuse just because we don't believe in censorship. You're grossly missing the point.
On the link you used, about your claim that Iran executes more children than anyone...let's go to the specifics: [17 Underage executions since 2004]. While that is egregious at any number at all, I think your out of context post is also egregious. How many Iraqi children have we killed with bombs and bullets?
Also, your link provides a number of complaints from Human Rights Watch about the US. So it is easy to pretend like we don't care about the human rights violations of Iran just because we believe in free speech, but that doesn't make it true.
Here is one of the bits in your link concerning US human rights violations.
We are writing to you with regard to the legal status of the five Iranian officials who have been detained in Iraq under the authority and control of the United States military since January 11, 2007. Human Rights Watch remains concerned about the legal basis for the arrest of the five Iranians, who may have been accredited diplomats at a consular office; the unwillingness of the US to transfer the Iranians to Iraqi authorities for prosecution under Iraqi law; and, the US failure to provide the Iranians fundamental due process rights. Human Rights Watch calls upon the US government to address these issues or promptly order their release.
-
@Iokannan
[Read the article: Columbia to be punished for hosting the new Hitler enemy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Has anyone here seriously considered how this kind of hysterical demonization of Ahmadinejad pushes the pro-war clod's line and the risks therein?
-- Iokannan in the Well
Easy answers to easy questions:
Of course we have.
You should know better than that, Iokannan.
-
Retired MP
[Read the article: David Brooks and the deceitful tactics of the Beltway pundit]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Here’s my small step. We mount a campaign to have Shields replaced with Glenn.
Glenn needs a soap box beyond Salon and c-span so that he can expose all this hypocrisy and conning to a wider audience. I think PBS would give him that launch.
Does this idea have merit? If it does, let’s strategize and take that small step together.
-- Retired Military Patriot
PBS Newshour knows that Glenn would mop the floor with Brooks every time, every sentence, every flippant little wave of Mr. Brooks hand. They couldn't tolerate that. Consequently, it is not likely to come about. Not that it isn't a great idea.
-
DanJuaquine
[Read the article: David Brooks and the deceitful tactics of the Beltway pundit]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Brooks on Bush translated by Dan.
"assertive & good humoured" (aka 'bullying & weirdly jocular')
"unshakeably committed" (aka 'stubbornly oblivious to reality')
"...empowered. His self-confidence is the most remarkable feature of his Presidency." (aka 'Bush's supreme egotism is utterly impervious to countless spectacular failures')
Yep. Those are all good ones, Dan.
-
sugarman
[Read the article: Columbia to be punished for hosting the new Hitler enemy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]not want to NIT-pick but Kitt was wrong. it has nothing to do with darning, it's nit,...
-- david sugarman
It's called, 'I misspelled it'. Since I'm sure you know what I meant I would say that you are nit-picking, now.
-
SLucid
[Read the article: David Brooks and the deceitful tactics of the Beltway pundit]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If you start your car, build a dam out of rocks, or clear a field to plant wheat, you are damaging the environment by destroying habitat, contributing to soil erosion, or introducing pollutants into the air and water. But since we live in a society that is not organized along hunter-gatherer lines, we have to build things, change things, cut down the occasional tree or introduce emissions into the atmosphere from our campfired and livestock. And so we have to balance our concerns for the environment vs. our desire to do things that have environmental consequences.
-- saintlucid
Not all of those things have environmental consequences.
There are cars you can start that don't pollute the atmosphere.
There are ways of planting a wheat field that don't destroy habitat or cause erosion.
There are ways of cutting down trees that actually contribute to the health of the forest. Especially now since man has unbalanced it.
It is possible, as you apparently don't know, for man to help counteract what he has done in the past by doing things in not only an environmentally friendly way, but even in a useful way for the health of the environment, and still reap a harvest of one thing or another.
-
Here's one
[Read the article: David Brooks and the deceitful tactics of the Beltway pundit]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So are you going to try this on wheat, and all of your knowledge about forestry too?
http://tinyurl.com/2vaynr
-
SLucid
[Read the article: David Brooks and the deceitful tactics of the Beltway pundit]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Whatever on your rap about batteries. You said there is no car you can start that won't cause pollution. I guess bird shit causes pollution, doesn't it. So do you think we should kill all the birds?
-
Darkeness, and about being smart and all
[Read the article: David Brooks and the deceitful tactics of the Beltway pundit]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The point is that we make choices concerning competing goods, in this case the good of ready transportation vs. the good of 100 percent pristine air. Could it be more obvious that EPA regulation is not an especially good way to make that choice? Is anybody happy with how the EPA operates or the political process that creates the statutes the EPA is given to enforce?
-- The Darkness Reaching Out For The Darkness
Actually, no, that wasn't the point. He said you can't start an automobile without making pollution. I said that you could and then, as asked, I named one.
To me, though, the real point was that he was winging off this and that about how man can't do anything without adversely effecting the environment. Including, he said, cutting down a tree. It just isn't that simple. It is not, in fact, even true. I know quite a bit about forestry and his statement was pure shit. So, I called him on that and some of his other quips.
As for the EPA? who the heck brought up the EPA? I sure didn't.