Letters to the Editor
sajwan
Published Letters: 487 Editor's Choice: 13
-
all Bush, all Araq
[Read the article: God save the queen!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Concern troll "concerned" about Salon being all Bush must have missed the part in this thread about we look like idiots for electing idiot GW and perhaps maybe not only look like idiots but in fact are idiots. So for those who do not believe we are all idiots, pointing out the idiocy and disaster of Bush and his policies constantly and consistently is the only way to at least attempt to make sure another idiot is not elected.
-
Legislating Procreation
[Read the article: Why I won't stay silent anymore]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The posts supporting legislation are disappointing in the level of the ignorance of the law, the decsion by the supreme court and understanding of late term procedures. But to stick to the "law" aspect of this discussion, since the Supreme Court feels it is right and proper to legislate what a women does with her body and life, I am sure they also agree that dicks, who are major players in this whole issue, should also be legislated. How about a law that states, that a man proven by dna to have inpregnated a woman, in or out of wedlock, has to devote 50% of his lifetime earnings (regardless of divorce or not) to the woman or spend the rest of his life in jail. I mean as the pro-lifers constantly shout from the hilltops, we are talking about life and death issues concerning children here, so it's a small price to pay for an unwelcome pregnancy. Or how about a law that states if a man inpregnates a women out of wedlock his balls are cut off? Too extreme? What? Getting pregnant is not extreme? Come on, this law could really cut down on the number of unwanted pregnancies.
If you like legislating procreation there are many opportunities for laws that make the individual with the dick a more responsible party in terms of unwanted pregnancies. However, I guess the legislators with dicks aren't interested in legislating those opportunities, they feel dicks can be counted on to be self-regulating.
-
Read the full Transcript
[Read the article: Gonzales' yearlong effort to block Comey's testimony]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The testimony of Comey is riveting. The kind of thing you would expect in a political thriller starring perhaps Philip Seymour Hoffman as Gonzalez and Al Pacino as Comey. This administration certainly has proven that when you think they could go no lower they strike new lows. In performance parlance, they consistently exceed expectations in that regard.
What is amazing is that this is melodrama on the level of any dramatic show on cable and is getting more or less "yawn" press coverage. You have the "mystery” firing list of UA attorneys that apparently materialized out of thin air since all at the justice department claim to have no idea how it was created. Add the cloak and dagger melodrama described by Comey with racing cars and late night confrontations over illegal spying, and it is an "A" show on cable TV, but apparently not with news departments.
Jake007 reminds me of the Monty Python skit where two knights meet in the woods. Knight B challenges Knight A to a fight and Knight A eventually chops off all of Knight B's limbs. Each time a limb is hacked off, Knight B continues to confidently ridicule and challenge Knight A. Eventually Knight B is left with a stump of a body. As Knight A rides away shaking his head, Jake007, I mean Knight B can still be heard ridiculing and challenging.
-
Unanswerable?
[Read the article: Comey's testimony raises new and vital questions about the NSA scandal]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"How is this not a major scandal on the level of the greatest presidential corruption and lawbreaking scandals in our country's history?"
This is an agonizing question for me as well. I don't not have an answer, except somehow I believe part of the answer lies within the tortured comments posted by Jake007.
-
Selling Paint as a Soft Drink
[Read the article: The administration's FISA falsehoods continue unabated]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I honestly think the only reason people like McConnell come up with these pieces are to see how well they can manipulate public opinion. It is like a marketing firm taking on the challenge of getting enamel paint to be the next big thing in soft drinks. Sure, it is ridiculous, but how many people can they sell the idea on and actually have them enjoy drinking it before they drop dead from poisoning.
As another poster said, lack of information or spying was not the issue. There was plenty of both, but little insight as to what to do with the Intel. Spending hundreds of billions on dumb-ass wars, homeland security bureaucrats, and suspension of habeus and illegal spying would not have stopped 9/11. The only thing that would have stopped 9/11 was securing the pilot cockpit. After multiple Intel warning about terrorists flying planes into buildings, not acting on this simple and inexpensive solution has to go down as one of the great mysteries of human stupidity.
-
Bigot Math
[Read the article: Large number of Americans favor violent attacks against civilians]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]According to GoldenBigots math, based on the 27% number from the poll, and the number of Christians in the world, there are 540 million Christians in the world that FAVOR KILLING CIVILIANS, which includes the elderly, women, children, and babies already born as well as the "unborn babies" if thats your inclination. Again this is based on GoldenBigots brilliantly bigoted and non-sensical mathmatical extrapolations.
I also wonder how GoldenBigot feels about Iranians seeming 2 1/2 times LESS PREDISPOSED TO KILLING CIVILIANS than Americans do. Let's do some bigot math on that too.
Which religion is the bigger danger to our asses, Muslims or Christians, is however irrelevant to Glenn's article which addresses the wildly lopsided anti-muslim interpretations of events and/or polls. Glenn did not explicitly state this as bigotry but I do. Those wildly lopsided anti-muslim interpretations is bigotry, dictionary definition being "strongly partial to one's own religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ". You can put lipstick on the pig in the form of polite conversation around "we are just looking at the religions and their dangers objectivly" but it still ends up being a pig.