Letters to the Editor
lexsali
Published Letters: 73 Editor's Choice: 9
-
Speaking of American Empire...
[Read the article: The Ron Paul phenomenon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Perhaps most importantly, Paul is the only serious candidate aggressively challenging America's addiction to ruling the world through superior military force and acting as an empire -- not by contesting specific policies (such as the Iraq War) but by calling into question the unexamined root premises of these policies, the ideology that is defining our role in the world."
Could be directly applied to the current crisis in Asia. Is there a reason you're not writing about the Pakistan issue that's been in the news lately? Or are you ignoring it to make a specific point?
-
I want to believe Paul, but....?
[Read the article: Ron Paul's Internet cha-ching ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"For many Ron Paul supporters, judging by their voluminous comments all over the Web, the Constitution is the code -- or more precisely, a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution that doesn't allow for its hijacking by busybodies of the left or right."
Firstly, Mr. Leonard, you do a good job of making your point without ever stating it. For example, you imply multiple times that Libertarians are tech-savvy, computer whizzes, Internet-loving freethinkers. At the end of the article, it's hard to imagine a Libertarian as anything other than a geek. Yet you never actually say that "Most Libertarians are computer nerds." This statement, or the similar inference you made, is crucial to your assertion that the reason Libertarians like Ron Paul is because of his streamlined thinking, and his focus on a central 'code', i.e., the Constitution. I don't know the demographics among Libertarians, but I can assure you, the majority of them will not be software nerds, because there aren't that many software nerds out there.
Personally, I agree with Ron Paul's diagnosis but not his cure. It's true the government has become bloated beyond recognition, but Paul needs to realize that there are just some things that have become essential to the functioning of the economy and political system over time, no matter how superfluous they were when they were established. His policies are based on his beliefs (like everyone else), and his anti-war, pacifist tendencies spill over into the abortion debate. He is strictly anti-abortion, and that does not agree with me.
Still, Paul strikes me as the most honest presidential candidate in a long time....
-
@ It's a winning formula
[Read the article: Bush and Musharraf's grand illusion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Truly, when I heard that Bush had been planning to invade Iraq before 9/11, it was the first time the possibility flashed through my mind that Bush might have been behind 9/11 to begin with. It was just too much of a coincidence for him, there was too much for him to gain from 9/11.
But referring to the Pakistan crisis, if anyone thinks Bhutto is the answer, think again. Bhutto might enjoy the largest group of supporters, but that's simply because she's the only alternative right now. She's the only alternative on the horizon right now, and next to Musharraf, she looks pretty good. But anyone thinking of her as the savior in this situation really needs to go back to her heyday as President in the 90's. She sucked that country dry, and her husband was more evil than even Musharraf. BUT, she's got America's full support, because she's pledged to do exactly as she's told.
Imran Khan is the answer. Look him up. Khan, on the other hand, will not get any support from the US, because he really wants what's best for Pakistan. And that is very dangerous to American interests the country.
-
Reinstate the original Supreme Court
[Read the article: Bush's old world disorder]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Has anyone else noticed that in all of Condoleeza Rice's weak attempts to bring Mush back into line, she hasn't once mentioned the problem of the Supreme Court? Yes, there have been vague references to the elections in January, the 'path to democracy', etc., but Bush is not demanding that Musharraf stop playing with the judicial system and put the original Supreme Court justices back in their seats. They are conveniently ignoring that angle, because they know Mush will absolutely refuse, due to the certainty that the justices will rule against him, and he will have to step down.
One of Bush's demands to Mush NEEDS to be, that he reinstate the original Supreme Court justices. If the Mush-appointed Supreme Court is allowed to continue, they will rule in his favor, and he will take off his uniform and forge an alliance with Bhutto to remain in power, all underneath the 'democratic' umbrella that Bush wants in order to be able to claim that he brought 'democracy' into Pakistan. This will be patently untrue, because if the original Supreme Court is not reinstated, all rulings of the new Supreme Court will be a complete farce, and a bald-faced lie against democracy in the face of BOTH America and Pakistan.