Letters to the Editor
Rocky57
Published Letters: 215 Editor's Choice: 4
-
Of course, the Future is Asia
[Read the article: Back to the future]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Barnardsstar: "...I have no idea what the next big ideas will be, but I'll offer one prediction: in 50 years, those ideas will be as likely to come from Asia as from the West."
Good point. My take? One of those Asian countries got a jump on the future when it was, in the mid-twentieth century, veritably blasted into the 21st.
Japan, technologically consumer-wise, looks as we SHOULD look or, more importantly, as we ENVISIONED ourselves-in the late 50's, early 60's-to look like at the beginning of the new millenium.
Now, I'm off to take in a good, bracing dose of some Masamune Shiro.
Ps: your handle evokes memories of the locale of one of the novels of one of SF's unjustifiably more obscure authors, the underappreciated J.T. McIntosh.
-
I'm comin' to join ya, Louise!
[Read the article: Is Rush Limbaugh right?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ol George held fast to his espoused racial views until he was fairly certain that the wheelchair he was bound to was the one he'd be riding when he'd finally meet his maker.
That same base that currently pollutes the GOP is the same one [or, its direct descendant] that would regularly return Wallace, and his counterparts throughout the south, to office, again and again.
-
Louise Redux
[Read the article: Is Rush Limbaugh right?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...Only they did it as Democrats. Old wine; new bottles.
-
Whoyakiddin'?
[Read the article: Keith Olbermann calls it "betrayal"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"...The problem isn't that Democrats won't stand up against the war, the problem is that the American people won't stand up against the war. To most people, the war just barely registers on their radar screens. Most people don't know anybody serving in Iraq. Most people aren't suffering in any way whatsoever from the war in Iraq. Taxes haven't gone up and the draft is not even a remote possiblity. Gas prices really aren't that bad and aren't obviously connected to the war...."
True. If having to chose between war and getting something of dire importance done another way, Americans'll opt for the former. That is why we're mired in this mess, in the first place.
And, the Democrats--who can be blamed for having written a check they couldn't cash vis a vis their base--know it. Given a choice between realizing that Republicans in this present incarnation don't represent their interest [especially in regard to sending their friends and relatives into the meat-grinder] and, once again, as they have since the nineteen sixties, looking upon the Democratic party as a bunch of spineless alien "others," most Americans'll opt for the latter, thank you very much.
Sorry, but I'm sure most of the Congressional Dems realize this one salient point: the only reason why those polls show most of the American electorate, which supported the invasion, against the war is because we're losing it.
If we had won in Iraq, and made all the right moves to crimp or forestall an insurgency, do you really think the electorate would be on the right side of the poll question: "Do you think going to war in Iraq was the correct-and moral-thing to do?"
The Dems in Washington know their support is tissue thin; that given a choice between seeing the Democratic Party as the more progressive political party and voting for one that--because of its make-up, outlook and professed "values"--they're comfortable with, no matter how much the evidence is to the contrary, the electorate will pull that lever for the elephant every time. The first time a catastrophic slaughter of an American military unit in Iraq hit the papers, in the wake of the successful passage of a congressional defunding effort, the Dems will be successfully tagged with the label "surrender monkeys" and most of the public, present polls not withstanding, will buy it and come January 2009, say hello to Rudy Giuliani, the forty-fourth President of these United States.
-
Whoa, nullus...
[Read the article: Bush and Musharraf's grand illusion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...someone should inform you that using the adjective, "arab," to describe the Pakistani state will sort of, well, nullify anything you have to say on the subject of Pakistan.
And, if you meant to write "muslim" instead of "Arab" [an occurrence I'd rather doubt] then you and your fellow dead-enders have to revisit another bone-headed gaffe of a belief you share about how countries with a predominant muslim population, in-roughly- "that part of the world," are incapable of stable democracies.
Or, is the word "Turkey," [the appellation of a country right on the border with a similarly "heathen" nation we've now been engaged in for almost half a decade] somehow confined, in your lexicon, to the description of the main entree on your Thanksgiving dinner table?
-
A message to the deaf and dumb
[Read the article: Bush and Musharraf's grand illusion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Are the people here deaf?
Or do you just not know how to read?
Given the chance to free and fair elections, Pakistanis have ALWAYS elected moderate, centrist leaders, NOT Islamist parties. Voter turnout in Pakistan is extremely low, due to the illiteracy rate, and most voters are from the cities, where the vast majority of people are NORMAL."
Aptly said, lexsali