Letters to the Editor
DCLaw1
Published Letters: 996 Editor's Choice: 2
-
unintelligent design
[Read the article: WSJ Op-Ed page decries hatred of the president]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Anonymust:
Mostly, though, I was struck dumb (but since I was alone at that time, it didn't matter) at the utter cluelessness of those who did not/could not/would not understand why someone might object to having anything religious interjected into their child's high school science curriculum. After all, what could be the harm?!
Tell me about it. I particularly loved how these "good Christians" were sending death threats to the teachers and the judge for standing up for science and the First Amendment. Death threats. And the threatened folks were themselves faithful Christians.
ondelette:
The weird part is that [cdesign proponentsists was] typed. Do you think they used a Selectrix or something? Never seen a cut and paste booboo like that in a pre-computer draft before.
Oh lord, It's just too good. It's like something David Sedaris would come up with.
shooter:
I admire your puck! You just keep at it, killer, it's so cute!
-
abrau
[Read the article: WSJ Op-Ed page decries hatred of the president]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Our liberal values of kindness and cooperation are being exploited to our detriment. Keep it objective. Stick to the facts. Firm, but polite.
I'm pretty much of a mind that a person only deserves as much respect as he or she demonstrates. I'm sick of this game of patty-cake with people who'd just as soon spit in my eye. And I don't just mean comment boards, where I couldn't care less if someone tosses off without rejoinder.
If someone wants to have a reasoned conversation, I'm all for it. But if they want to act like a clown or a ten-year-old bully, I'm dressing them down without hesitation.
I used to debate political issues on a live radio show in which conservatives always outnumbered liberals by at least one or two. The right-wingers had no problem piling on in the most unfair way possible, and this was just a microcosm of the larger political climate. The only way to deal with that gang mentality is to hit back like you mean it.
Because you do.
-
Before I hit the hay
[Read the article: WSJ Op-Ed page decries hatred of the president]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I want to address a totally unrelated, but important topic.
Check out this video/story about the State Dept. Inspector General's interference with investigations into Blackwater actions in Iraq, if you haven't already:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/11/14/house-hearings-on-state-department-ig-shows-conflict/
Why isn't this a bigger story??
By the way, nice job Rep. Cummings.
-
the effect of beating Rudy
[Read the article: Rudy Giuliani's messianic paranoia]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Best to defeat Giuliani as early as possible in the primaries.
Here's the interesting thing. If Rudy wins the primary and goes on to lose to the Democratic nominee in the general (both of which I think are more likely than not), the lessons Americans should learn about that defeat will not be learned by those who need to learn it most.
In a rational world, Rudy's defeat would be viewed as a defeat of neoconservative militarism, xenophobia, and authoritarianism, but this will not be the case. Instead, due to the relentless media framing of Rudy as a "moderate," as Glenn has detailed, his defeat will be viewed as a failure to be extreme enough. This will be particularly the case if the Democratic nominee fails to express clear and unequivocal opposition to the policy pillars of neoconservativism, even if he or she is in fact worlds better than Giuliani on that score.
Analysts will point over and over to statistics suggesting that some hard-line evangelical voters did not turn out to vote, or that Rudy was "too much like the Democratic nominee" to present a stark enough choice to the voter. Despite the fact that war and authoritarian policies here and abroad have been the overwhelmingly dominant political themes of almost the entire Bush presidency, the post-election commentary will place remarkably disproportionate emphasis on issues like abortion and gay rights.
As a result, the Democratic president will be heavily expected by the media and the Washington establishment to continue with militarist, authoritarian policies, particularly out of a Pavlovian expectation by these observers that the Democratic commander-in-chief will need to struggle existentially not to appear "soft on terror."
Yes, sadly, even if Giuliani loses, the establishment will have learned none of the essential lessons of that outcome. Instead, they will learn the opposite. And a new era of Democrat-baiting will begin.