Letters to the Editor
sajwan
Published Letters: 487 Editor's Choice: 13
-
Israel and the Military Complex
[Read the article: Majority of Israelis want to negotiate with Hamas]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Israel is one of the arguments or props for our continued military strategic goals in the Middle East.
If Israel truly pursues peace, military initiatives get dinged - kind of like what happened when the march to war with Iran got dinged when the NIE concluded Iran is not developing nuclear weapons.
It is yet another subversion of debate. The debate simplisticly and inaccurately becomes: being against military solutions is anti-Israel, being for Israel means being for military solutions.
The Obama statement, "the U.S. pro-Israel community is a little more protective or concerned about opening up that conversation", while diplomatic and a step in the right direction, it is also quite the understatement and I am not sure recognizes the forces behind keeping the debate closed.
-
Well... Except...
[Read the article: Denouncing, rejecting at the Democratic debate ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As Jimmy Chitwood pointed out, Obama never rejected Farrakhan. Renounce has a separate meaning than reject. Renouncing anti-Semitism is different than renouncing an anti-Semite. Rejecting the support (as in votes) from an anti-Semite is different than rejecting someone’s anti-Semitic views.
This episode further points out that Obama fans are so in love with the power of words, well… except when they are not.
Reminds me of how Obama in speech after speech tells us to stop dwelling in the past - it’s about the future, well… except when it’s about Iraq, then for Obama it’s all about the distant past when he gave a speech in 2002. Since that speech in 2002, which had ZERO impact on the Iraq debate, he has offered ZERO except going along with the status quo.
Maybe Obamas campaign is not about
“Change” and “Hope”
it’s about
“Well…” and “Except...”.
-
Eyes rolling...
[Read the article: Is Obama playing the race card?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This endless parsing of the "facts" and interpretations of who meant what and when they said it or may not have said it.
Enough.
You'd have to be an imbecile to conclude that since using race has worked in the past, politicians would not use it now. This includes Obamas campaign. And why shouldn't Obama use race, blacks have been excluded from the presidency because of race in the past and now that race can be used in his favor, he is supposed to walk away? He is a good politician and not that stupid.
The risk isn't race for Obama, it is like gay bashers who get caught in gay sexual relationships, it's not the gay relationships that sinks them it's their lying about who they really are. The risk for Obama is that his platform is about his "new" voice in politics and there is nothing new under the sun in politics, and if voters figure that out, it could be trouble. There is a similar kind of risk for "Straight Shooting" McCain.
What this election does show is how far women have to go. How many dumb blonde jokes are there still going around? How many dumb black guy jokes? Gender slurs in political postings relating to menstrual cycles, "evil btch", stupid cnt", are still common while racial slurs against blacks are rightly banned. Look at the religious right where a solid, defined Huckabee voting bloc clearly state that based on God and the Bible a woman should not and could not lead the country. These "valid" voters are interviewed on NPR of all places, however a voting bloc explicitly stating according to God a black should not lead the country would rightly be treated with disdain and horror.
Again, for blacks there is great progress, for women, still a long way to go.
-
Anybody notice?
[Read the article: Some hateful, radical ministers -- white evangelicals -- are acceptable]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I do not know how this got on public education, but if you know want to know anything about school board politics go to a school committee meeting and then if you are like me you will weep.
If you want to know if public education is better than home schooling, look at the teachers. In public, private, or home schooling there are great, mediocre and lousy teachers. The issue is that if you are home schooled you only get one shot - if your parent(s) suck as teachers, you are fukked. With public education, you have a chance to run into at least a couple of great teachers and still get an education along the way from the mediocre ones. Socialization skills with home schoolers can be an additional issue if the home schooling is setup in a way where a child spends most of their time with adults with limited access to peers.
---------------------
Getting back to the post, the Farrakhan issue for Obama was really about keeping black voters’ support as high as possible by not repudiating part of the black community. Some enthralled by his silver tongue thought he "transcended" the question. Me down here on planet earth just thought he was slippery and dodged the question. He never rejected Farrakhan or his supporters, just denounced some anti-Jewish views.
Glenns greater point of why white right wing whack jobs, like Robertson, Hagee and others do not get the same scrutiny and disdain as Farrakhan is a question I’d like Timmy dumbass Russert to answer when he gets a chance.
My extension of Glenns issue is how as a nation we give any credibility at all to an entire 20% voting bloc who clearly state that God and the Bible do not want a women to lead the country and will practice their politics accordingly. Anybody notice this is maybe just a little discriminatory against women?
Anybody notice that freedom of religion while not providing cover for racism anymore, still provides cover for discriminatng against women?
-
Ahhh those were the days...
[Read the article: Bush chides Clinton, Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...before the days of Clinton/Obama wars when the discussions were mostly focused on the idiot man-child in the White house.