Letters to the Editor
anonny
Published Letters: 124 Editor's Choice: 13
-
"What could the US have to talk about with Ahmadinejad?"
[Read the article: Obama Strikes Back]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Actually, he's probably not the person that the US would talk to. The Israeli pressure groups always bring his name up because of his provacative quotes about Israel (although many Arab speakers have disputed some of the translations), however his power is actually very limited within Iran.
Obama was asked about his "preconditions" comment today in a Q&A and he stated that what would actually happen is that the lower-level diplomatic corps would start meeting to set up an appropriate agenda before higher level meetings -- which is normal for international meetings -- and that talks would occur when the agenda was agreed to.
It's worth noting that all the US sabre-rattling towards Iran has increased the support for their hard right religious leadership and away from their moderates. By meeting with Iran and softening the animosity, we are laying the foundation for internal moderation in Iranian politics. Let us not forget that Iran actually had a functioning, western-style democracy in 1953-4 until a CIA-supported overthrow installed the Shah, and that in turn provided the impetus for the fundamentalist Islam revolution 25 years later.
It's also worth noting that both Iran and North Korea's positions on Nuclear weapons hardened considerably during the Bush administration. Both restarted their programs after Bush reversed the policies that Clinton established.
So, opening diplomatic relations has the potential to greatly defuse the situation, and thus is certainly worth pursuing.
-
It's TOO EARLY
[Read the article: Maps show Clinton better against McCain than Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes, we all have a psychological need to KNOW NOW, so we engage in this kind of detailed speculation. It's hard not to. But polls right now are meaningless.
At this time in 1992 Bill Clinton was dead last in a 3 way race with Ross Perot the media darling. Poor Bill didn't stand a chance, did he? And George HW Bush was getting creamed by Dukakis in the polls in August, 1988 -- we didn't hear much from GHWB after that, did we?
Here's the problem: there is a large percentage of the electorate that we call the low-info voters. They'll tell pollsters who they prefer now, but their minds will change a lot between now and November. (These are the voters who give each party a boost in the polls after their respective conventions.) The low info voter doesn't yet know much about McCain -- and not much more about Obama either. What they have heard recently about Obama is mostly negative -- as is to be expected given that the Democratic campaign is still active.
Things will be a lot different in October. The low info voters will have seen Obama and McCain at their conventions, in national ads, and in the debates. In addition, the reality of the election will begin to sink into the voters minds. Today, their thoughts are more about personalities. They might be attracted to Obama's message of hope or McCain's alleged experience. By October, people will be thinking about the economy, about the war, and about the issues of the day, and that will factor into their votes. Unless there is some unexpected economic boom, the low info voter will be in the mood for change, and McCain -- as the representative of the status quo -- will have an almost impossible task no matter who he faces.
-
A campaign based entirely on delusions
[Read the article: Is McCain's campaign in trouble?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Seriously, one has to ask how long any campaign -- or political platform -- that is based entirely on delusions can continue to thrive?
Certainly campaigns based on lies can win -- it happens over time. But over time even the more gullible voters will begin to catch on.
Consider that the beliefs widely identified as Republican now consist items like the following:
> Gay marriage is the end of the world
> A few thousand low-income, low-education, low-tech radical Muslims are a greater threat to the US than were the Cold War Soviets or WW2 Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany combined.
> Reducing rich people's taxes always leads to economic boom and increased tax revenues
> Thousands of average-paid climate science PhDs are lying about global warming in order to get more funding, but a handful of well-paid non-climate scientists who deny global warming are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.
> All bad economic things can be blamed on immigrants, Democrats, and especially Bill Clinton. All good economic things can be credited to Reagan's 1981 tax cut.
And so on. Every one of the key Republican beliefs is based on falsehoods. It wasn't always this way -- however that is how the situation has evolved. And even many staunch Republicans are starting to realize this.
-
The term "liberal media" was originated by the segregationists
[Read the article: Scott McClellan on the "liberal media"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let us remember that the label "liberal media" was originated by the southern segregationists who couldn't stand the national news coverage of the Jim Crow era. What made the national press "liberal", in the eyes of the segregationists, was their audacity to expose what was really happening to the Negros in the south.
-
GM foods not proven unsafe -- nor are they proven safe
[Read the article: A boneheaded Bush administration lecture on science]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I know what he means: the U.S. position -- again, at the behest of the biotech industry -- is that other nations should not be able to ban genetically modified food products unless they can prove, scientifically, that they post a real danger to human health or the environment.
Yes, every US press article on GM crops (the few that are allowed to appear in print) points out that there has been no proof that they are harmful.
Of course, what they don't say is that there also is no proof that they are safe. It's funny that the FDA won't permit a drug on the market until it has been proven safe in controlled studies, but no similar requirement exists for food. When you consider that GM crops are generally modified to include the equivalent of a built-in pesticide -- well, one has to wonder about the long term effects on the animals who eat those built-in pesticides in quantity.
Most Europeans understand this, so oppose GM foods until such proof exists. Most of the American press, when they cover the issue at all, dismisses the European concerns as superstition.