Letters to the Editor
rodian
Published Letters: 134 Editor's Choice: 9
-
@isisdagmar
[Read the article: Bill Maher vs. the "talking snake"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We don't live in a democracy. To repeat a famous quote: "democracy is two wolves and sheep deciding what to have for dinner". We live in a Republic. Or at least we were supposed to. Mob rule is what it's come to, it seems. Maybe reciting the pledge of allegiance will jog your memory.
It's not your fault you don't know this. The President doesn't get this either. Nor any other contemporary American politician, nor the MSM. Is it any wonder this country is going down the drain?
-
bottom up is right
[Read the article: What's so wrong about mass hara-kiri?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hurray, some level thinking! Banks don't make money out of nothing, although they would like to. Banks make money on the backs of hard working Americans who pay interest on their loans (and their investment portfolio, which is another matter). When those people can't pay, the banks are in trouble. I'm sure I sound like a broken record, but the banking crisis is not the problem, it's a symptom. The problem is that ordinary Americans are tapped out by high oil prices, high interest rates, and a lackluster economy.
You are exactly right, the bailout is just more trickle down economics.
-
scumbags
[Read the article: Porn producer invokes the Bush/Yoo defense -- unsuccessfully]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn says,
We don't imprison people for being "scumbags." We imprison them for breaking the law.
And we create the laws. And we write the laws to circumscribe acceptable and unacceptable behavior, within constitutional limits. Law codifies social convention and community standards, as evidenced by our reliance on jury oversight. Most communities I know would consider paying someone to let you videotape you beating them and pissing on them abusive and unacceptable. For some reason, you seem to believe that the act of "consenting" puts any and all behavior above the law. That's not a constitutional provision that I'm aware of. You can talk about the freedoms you believe are accorded "consenting adults" all day long, but it comes off as whiny, unless you are able to provide some constitutional backing for your proposition.
As it happens, philosophically, I agree with your belief in individual freedom, but I don't see our system working that way.
-
fey
[Read the article: Nobody's dummy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Once again, Paglia, the ultimate sycophant, sucks up to the dominatrix du jour. The fact that Camille can see Palin as anything but the vapid empty headed pull-string doll that she is proves beyond reasonable doubt that Camille is all about style sans substance. I only wonder - is there room in Camille's heart for her old flame Madonna to share space with the young, vital and virile Palin? Is she a serial monogamous brown-noser, or a polygamous personality worshiping slut?
Ignoring Palin is not perilous, it every thinking person's duty. The nation's infestation of kooks and cultists producing and consuming a steady diet of intellectual tripe is the real peril. Validating Palin is nothing but more of the same narcissistic hubris which characterizes the shallow provocative dialectic this column has come to typify.
Stop looking for love under the overpass. Lost empty headed bimbos are really not your type. There are some really great girls worth your attention. Tina Fey, for example.
-
Final resting place
[Read the article: Opus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The south pole, of course. Familiar and safe.
And warm.
-
marriage
[Read the article: Colin Powell condemns the ugliness of the Republican Party]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I believe a person's beliefs about the purpose of marriage derive from their religious beliefs; and as such, should not be endorsed by government in any form. Government should not endorse gay marriage, government should not endorse any marriage. Marriage has nothing at all to do with the proper functioning of our government.
It has an impact on our current tax code. The only way interpersonal relationships should affect our tax code is because society generally seems to want to give people a break who are raising children. Again, this should have nothing to do with whether or not marriage is involved.
Get government out of the marriage business altogether.
-
He's still Ayn Rand's boy toy
[Read the article: Alan Greenspan blames Wall Street]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I didn't hear any apology, other than his "I'm sorry I didn't know people could be so stupid." Investors got burned, so now they will be more cautious he says. No intervention necessary. Let the free market continue to work its magic.
If you really believe recent events pave the way for a new understanding of market mechanics, you greatly underestimate the intransigence of the plutocracy. Make no mistake. The pigs will not duck their tails between their legs and run. They will proclaim the virtue of unmitigated greed and unfettered markets forever. They have learned nothing. If you think the world has learned anything, then understand that it is a pyrrhic victory which will be under eternal assault by the rich and powerful. Their numbers may be small, but their influence is great.
-
More steak for me, please
[Read the article: Is my relationship killing the planet?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How many long distance relationships like this would it take to destroy the planet?
The planet has limited resources. Assuming universal equality, there are two possible solutions. Either everyone lives like a pauper, or we control the world's population to the point where we don't have to feel so damn guilty about a self-indulgence now and then.
Of course, universal equality is a pipe dream for the foreseeable future. Instead, the privileged classes will reap the benefits of their industrial societies while the rest of the world molders in abject poverty. And then they will blog about their terrible eco-moral dilemmas.
I'd say anyone typing on a mercury and lead filled computer about their ecological misgivings is a hypocrite. For penance, they should be go live in a truly subsistence only society so that they can experience the life they romanticize first hand.
Especially the ridiculous animal poop haters. Put a really big number on the amount of shit animals produce and, ewww, it's just so gross!! A big juicy steak for the first genius to guess what happens to plants without animals. Don't like the _concentrations_ you say? Then reduce your own goddamn concentration, you pavement producing filthy monkey, and the problem will be solved.