Letters to the Editor
anonny
Published Letters: 124 Editor's Choice: 13
-
Right wing country?
[Read the article: Dick Cheney was never a "grown-up"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]face it: this is now a right wing country, and people here l-u-u-v-v torture, and George Bush, and the new feudalism.
Really? Not clear. What *is* clear is that the large majority of the people support Democratic policies but a substantial number vote Republican anyway.
Greenwald has covered this phenomenon thoroughly in his latest book.
Unfortunately, in the U.S. people as a whole are remarkably uninformed, compared to other 3rd world countries, about their government and its policies. Worse, we have a subclass of people -- those who frequent Drudge, Fox, NewsMax, TownHall, WorldNetDaily -- who are remarkably misinformed, and those people add their misinformation into the general mix, creating a lot of confusion. Remember how the 9/11 hijackers practiced on an old 707 in Baghdad? Remember how large caches of fresh WMDs were found? Well today those same people are publishing articles (I am not making this up) claiming that Obama is the anti-Christ, filled will all kinds of interesting "facts".
So, no, the U.S. is not a right wing country. But as a nation it sure is very confused.
-
Dykes and locks
[Read the article: How safe are you from the Great Flood?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks for the link -- it's an interesting view.
Realistically, Berkeley and the rest of the SF Bay communities will be safe because there will no doubt be a dyke built across the Golden Gate as the water rise becomes obvious. Old technologies -- dykes and locks (locks will be needed to let through the extensive ship traffic) will solve the problem. Of course, all that fresh water flowing down from Sacramento could be a bit of a problem, but if Northern California is smart they'll sell the excess fresh water to Southern California and Arizona, who are going to need it as Colorado Plateau rainfall is expected to diminish as the Earth warms.
No, SF Bay will probably do fine. Other parts of the globe won't do so well.
-
Good news for McCain now is bad news for him later
[Read the article: How to interpret a dead-even horse race]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As others have said, it is still very, very early. At this point in 1992 Clinton was dead last in a 3 way race while Perot was the media darling. Clinton was still battling Paul Tsongas in a hard fought primary. As we know, Clinton didn't do badly in November.
The first part of what helped Clinton was media fatigue. He'd had so much negative news about him (Jennifer Flowers, etc) that he was almost the forgotten candidate. By the time the fall came around there was almost a "newness" about him from the point of view of the undecided voter. He was fresh, energetic, interesting. And all those bad news scandals that he'd endured in the early part of 1992? By autumn those were old news, not worth considering by the undecided voters.
The second part of what helped Clinton, of course, was the economy.
Well, we probably should hope that Obama (or, if it happens, Hillary) continues to get pounded by the press for the next 4 months while McCain continues to get the free ride. By September, when the debates roll around, the undecided voters will be tired of all the piling on about Obama or Hillary, and also ready to hear something juicy about McCain (and boy does he have a lot of juicy stuff to be told). Meanwhile, throw in a bad economy and 4 more months of Bush mismanagement in Iraq, and the scales will tip the Democrats way. This will especially be the case if Obama is the nominee, as he will shine in the debates unlike any candidate since Bill Clinton.
-
A classic dilemma
[Read the article: Quote of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The good news is that women now have an almost equal opportunity in the American workplace -- totally equal in some places, less so in others. (Most of the rest of the world has some catching up to do, even Western Europe.)
The bad news is that the younger women who benefit from this a) aren't aware of how bad it was just a short while ago and b) aren't aware of the predjudicies that linger below the surface.
If they aren't aware, then they won't fight to keep their recent advancements, and thus risk losing them. The same can be said of some minority groups.
And let's be clear -- the battle for women's rights was not won, just as the battle against creationism was not won. The ERA was defeated in the late 1970s by the rise of what is now known as the right wing wurlitzer. There are large groups who would love to see women's rights rolled back, even if that is not an explicit part of their goals.
So, if one outcome of this election is that younger women, by seeing how Hillary is treated, rediscover their feminism, then that is a good thing.
-
Remember Scott Ritter?
[Read the article: Major revelation: U.S. media deceitfully disseminates government propaganda]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is an excellent summary of the performance of the press in the run up to the war. But it's important to rememebr that while the press was promoting the pro-war view, the press was also actively centering the responsible anti-war view.
Scott Ritter, as you may recall, was the former U.S. Marine who had headed the UN Inspection team in Iraq through 1998. In 2002 he was actively warning anyone who would listen that the whole WMD story was a lie, and he had the supporting evidence. Ritter was not only blackballed by the news and print media, but the media participated in broadcasting false accusations of child abuse about him.