Letters to the Editor
mattwa33186
Published Letters: 394 Editor's Choice: 41
-
@A. Reader
[Read the article: Imperial presidency declared null and void]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So your attitude toward the Constitution is identical to Bush's: it is just a piece of paper when it stands in the way of your desired goals. I am not comforted that you have descended down the Nietzschean rabbit hole and become what you seek to destroy.
Not at all, not even close. I am simply taking the sharp edge of the "Constitution is not a suicide pact" argument off the necks of the citizens, where this administration has put it, and putting at the neck of the government, where it belongs.
I understand that the President has to be free to act within what he believes are the confines of the law without fear of criminal prosecution. I get that. Those laws are there to allow the President to do his job. They do not place him above the law, they take into consideration the nature of his position and allow for mistakes.
When the courts inform him that his actions are illegal and un-Constitutional, he's supposed to stop - period. If he continues to commit the same illegal acts, Congress is supposed to intervene through the impeachment process. But they haven't, and probably won't.
And in that case, the States themselves are supposed to intervene. And the only recourse they have, other than meaningless declarations (of which we already have several), is to either arrest and try his ass or return to the Articles of Confederation.
Your position seems to be that if the federal government fails to live up to their responsibilities, among which is to abide by the law and support, protect, and defend the Constitution, we're simply fucked - that whole Republic thing was nice but we can now see that it was quaint. I disagree. Defending the Constitution is something that has to be done. If the feds refuse or fail (which they have), the responsibility falls to the States. And if they refuse or fail, it falls to the People.
You would give the President the power to void the Constitution. I wouldn't.
-
How is this bad?
[Read the article: Surveying the rubble]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A third fewer artists signed draconian deals (a friend in the music industry once told me that a standard contract basically required the band to go gold to avoid bankruptcy) with mega-corporations? It's not like they aren't being heard.
Straight to the internet releases supported by satellite radio (I know XM had one or two stations devoted to unsigned artists), the rapidly falling cost of self-publishing, and the growth of e-commerce and social networking are shifting the profits and maybe more importantly control over the work back to the artists.
5 years ago the cost for 2 people to see a major act, buy 2 t-shirts and get the CD was about $270 around here - $85 per ticket for good but not great seats, $45 for a shirt that would last more than 6 months, and $15 for the CD - and that was for a show with 3 major corporate sponsors. And they wonder how they are losing the kids? Shortsightedness and greed, that's how.
Bemoaning the fact that the record industry is dying and being replaced by something better is like bitching that Colonial America was replaced by the United States.
-
As expected
[Read the article: Get your cheap cocaine at the globalization candy store]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks to the War on Drugs. By creating a highly Darwinian environment, the government has managed to weed out inefficient producers, drive costs down, and increase availability. The fact that demand has not increased during that time completely destroys the whole "if we legalize drugs the streets will be littered with addicts" argument.
Even the softer drugs are feeling the impact. Some cite the increase in the price of pot as a sign of the success of the WoD, but that fails to take into account the fact that the pot that costs $400 an ounce now cost $400 an ounce 25 years ago. The availability of nasty $40 an ounce pot has been seriously affected, because the gov't has managed to drive small growers with a generic product out of business (at least in this area). But the market is thriving and $400 pot is about 10 times better than $40 pot so the effect to the consumer is minimized.
So, if pretty much exactly as many people are using drugs now as would be if they were legal, what are we getting for all that funding aside from increased street violence as dealers fight for marketshare to replace margins (they are not fighting for an increased share of a shrinking market, contrary to what we are told) and overcrowded prisons? A profound sense of well being that comes from knowing we are doing the right thing? The knowledge that we are somehow better than the Dutch? I don't know, but whatever it is I'd rather have the money.
-
I think I'm gonna puke
[Read the article: White House: Trust the "sole enforcer"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If not from the whole notion that we are supposed to simply trust these people, then because I'm a little dizzy from all the spinning this chick was doing.
It's been a while since we had anyone in the White House who thought of themselves as a public servant, but up until now they at least felt accountable, to greater or lesser degrees.
How could anything that can't be seen by people with the highest possible security clearance possibly be good? What knowledge of security does Bush have that would make me feel better that he has "decidered" that he is in complete charge of document security for the government?
What the fuck is wrong with these people?