Letters to the Editor
djmagaro
Published Letters: 79 Editor's Choice: 2
-
Phraseology
[Read the article: The "Rezko" game]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One tale-tell sign of the substance-free attack is the use of the "X raises questions about Y" formula, without specifically stating what those questions might be, let alone what the answers really are. Just as the scariest horror movies are the ones that don't show the monster, the most effective attacks are the one that allow an uncritical public to use their imaginations to fill in the darker details.
-
The McCain Myths
[Read the article: It's 3 a.m. Who do you want answering the phone?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Myth #1: McCain stoically and heroically withstood torture, refusing to talk or implicate himself or comrades in alleged atrocities and war crimes.
The Truth: McCain admits that he talked under torture. He broke, and to make the torture stop, he told his interrogators everything they wanted to hear, which isn't surprising because that's exactly what torture makes you do.
Myth #2: John McCain is a war hero who served honorably.
The Truth: In the 1990's, McCain described himself as a war criminal for knowingly bombing civilians. His attitude toward himself changed right around the time he first ran for president.
Whether or not these truths disqualify him for the Presidency is up to one's individual conscience. (To my mind, the truth behind Myth #1 doesn't disqualify him for the Presidency, but the truth behind Myth #2 does.)
-
The Imbalance of Balance
[Read the article: The religion of balance and centrism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I first noticed the imbalance of "balance" in the 90's surround the abortion issue. The "sensible" position was to find a "middle ground" between the two extremes.
One extreme wanted to ban all abortions for everyone, everywhere, forever. This extreme should have been called "anti-abortion" since that is the most accurate reflection of their position, but they were universally called "pro-life," even though, as a rule they didn't care about a person's life after they were born up to their death, at which point they started caring again.
The other "extreme" wanted abortions to be safe, legal, and affordable for any woman who wanted one. This "extreme" was called "pro-choice" which is a fairly accurate summary of the position.
Now if you think about it, the extreme opposite of the anti-abortion position would be a "pro-abortion" position: forced abortions for all pregnant women, in which case the pro-choice position is the real middle ground.
But because no one - not even in China - advocated such a position, the pro-choice position was that of the "extreme left" and so "serious," "reasonable" people set about finding a "middle ground" which was to restrict abortions for some people (the poor, minorities, foreigners, service-women overseas, teenagers) but not others (white, affluent, middle-class, the insured).
The result framing the debate thus is that the "middle ground" continually tacks to the right as the old middle ground becomes the new "extreme left."
Nowadays the salients issues revolve around things like torture, where one extreme says that the president to do whatever he wants, to anyway he wants in a time of war - and don't ya know, we're currently in the middle of righteous Forever War. The other "extreme" says that torture is wrong, people, war or no war. So obviously, "balanced" and "thoughtful" folk are hard at work finding a "middle ground": Torture for some (muslims (citizen or not) and assorted darkies) but no one else - yet.
-
Real Bad Guys
[Read the article: War cheerleaders ask: "Is Obama man enough to be president?"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That a couple of paper tigers like Castro and Ahmadinejad are considered "real bad guys" shows how out of touch with reality our pundits are. Frankly, I'm surprised he didn't throw Hugo Chavez in there for good measure.
The real bad guys are the ones in Saudi Arabia funding Islamic terrorists and in Pakistan training them. The real bad guys are the whole horde of central Asian dictators whose horrific crimes against their own people are funded and facilitated by us as part of our War on Terror.
That our press and pundits can't bring themselves to admit such basic, indisputable realities would be pathetic if the consequences of their blindness weren't so dire.
-
What's interesting...
[Read the article: That woman is a total space cadet (in a good way)]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Is that in the 1950's, NASA determined that women would make better astronauts than men. Something about having a high pain threshold as I recall...
Anyone know anything else about this?
-
Irregardless...
[Read the article: The Politico claims the Iraq war will help McCain]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]is a perfectly cromulent word.
-
The Young British Soldier
[Read the article: Bush "envious" of U.S. troops in Afghanistan]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sheeit ... not even Kipling tought Afghanistan was "romantic":
"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier."
-
I Used to Be a Liberal Hawk
[Read the article: Lessons not learned]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I used to believe in the moral right of liberal democracies to wage war or tyrants and dictators the world over (with a number of caveats now moot since I'm no longer a Liberal Hawk). I came of political age during the wars in the Balkans and the Rwandan genocide, and weened on the anti-fascist glory of the American Left and WWII, and I genuinely believed that we rich, liberal democracies not only possessed a moral right, but a moral responsibility to wage war against all dictators and tyrants, even when not directly threatened.
But even I, a Liberal Hawk at the dawn of this war, was not dumb enough to think the Bush Administration would "do it right." Shit - they were explicitly telling us that they intended to do it wrong, i.e. low troop levels, no international buy-in, no post-war/reconstruction planning, ridiculously (impossibly) low dollar-cost-estimates - plus the blatant propaganda and fear-mongering that should raise red flags for any critical thinker.
All the information was there for any reasonably rational person - Liberal Hawk or not - to know that this war, waged by this administration, was going to be one big fucking disaster.
I am truly sorry that I ever believed that it was morally justified to wage when not directly threatened with war. I feel ashamed for believing so, and I didn't even support this particular war.
-
Now I Know Why They Made Us Do Word Problems in Math
[Read the article: Is Briana Waters a terrorist?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A woman needs to travel 60 miles in 45 minutes. How fast, on average, does the eco-terrorist need to drive? Be sure to remember in your calculations that the woman is an eco-terrorist.