Letters to the Editor
pbr90k
Published Letters: 7 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Bush Incompetent or Too Privileged?
[Read the article: Dick Cheney's top aide: "We're one bomb away" from our goal]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Most in the nation have no peculiar hatred of Bush, for sure; there are signs of disagreement, but those are borne of decisionmaking and action by Bush that most feel are inconsistent with national ideals.
Our situation may be due to the fact not that Bush is incompetent in any industry or activity, but that he may be too privileged to occupy the Presidency, especially since his father had been one.
Daddy's boys who can do no wrong usually end up overextending their privilege - and off do wrong in the false confidence that they are effective when they may not be.
Little childhood criticism where appropriate often results in attitudes that aren't conducive to heavy criticism as adults; in fact, it can result in total denial.
If Clinton was fair game for psychiatrists, certainly Bush's actions deserve the same scrutiny, and there is no reason to suspect that Bush's mother was anything but a doting parent of her youngest.
False perceptions easily give way to false actions that haven't been fully thought through for their effectivenss, or their propriety. Bush, Jr. may suffer from this problem.
Or, he may have been subject to bad advice from the onset, and set up, as it was, with too conscientious concern that had ulterior motives by those more interested in personal financial benefits than those aimed to provide for the common good. In that he might be considered gullible, a human flaw for which there are few cures, except experience.
With the degree of potential in the White House for scuttlebut, the American citizens may never know the truth.
That Americans are inclined to believe what they are told from the highest seat of government cannot be considered the mistake of the American people, but they are the recipients of of all problems that arise there, and should, therefore, be properly cautious of what transpires wtihin that environment.
The Bush regime has been anything but candid about their administrative decision making, and that weakness has yet to be explained with any satisfaction for the American people. Without that candor, can the public be blamed for not embracing the Bush/Cheney policies?
To be sure, America today is not the same as it was when they took on the job of changing it. And American's want their old country back. Why shouldn't they have it? It's been good enough for 400 years before Bush and Cheney changed it?
Those are the actions that need explanation more than anything else, and few answers beyond the need for security have surfaced. But, didn't we have security concerns before during 400 years without so drastically altering the American lifestyle?
-
Giant Baloon Safety Net: Airplane LifeBoat?
[Read the article: Ask the pilot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]While it may be practical to suggest that parachutes be provided in the case of plane crashes, is it possible that NASA can develop what simulates a lifeboat for a ship, in the form, perhaps, of a Giant Baloon Safety Net more like a giant air bag where survival is possible because of cushioning, inflatability, and air currents and temperature management?
Somehow losing 520 - 900 people due to air crashes doesn't seem to be the logical dismissal of human life that can bear the scrutiny of asking professionals who put men on the moon if it is even possible to devise rescue features for planes.
Without trying, how could anyone ever know?
-
Leadership by Gender
[Read the article: What's wrong with voting by gender?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If democracy means leadership by its people, women are one half of those people. Cutting the population by one half, the female half, to obtain leadership is as wrong as cutting the population by one half, the male half, to obtain leadership.
In reality, the direction for America - if it is serious about its democracy - would be to designate one half of the Congress, and one half of the state legislatures to women only as a truer representation of its people.
It's not so much about electing a woman as equalizing the political leadership. The choice, then, for a man or a woman, would be a natural choice with the entire population to choose from - not designated men only attitudes nor designated women only attitudes.
To do otherwise is nearly pure folly that suggests the one half excluded does not have the same, or similar self interests as the half included.
If leadership has become the bastion of men concerned only with business or law, the leadership has departed from the concept of being leadership for all, and has become no more than an extension of the commercial or legal interests in the nation, as if those matters alone counted as leadership. It is a fantasy world of leadership fictions that presumes only men, or only women are acceptable as leadership.
The most obvious reality is that the creation of families has always been in the best interests of both men and women in society, and America is not doing well in these areas because of its commercial dominance. Men are not robots, and women are not baby incubators but society continues to operate as if this was true. It is an unrealistic conclusion borne of a time that ignored the few number of children that women now produce during their lifetime, the education they have, and their desire and capability for social engagement, including political participation. Women have changed; men haven't.
The male design is that men are not allowed to change, to have alternative interests, or leisure, for fear that America's commercialism will be weakened. America doesn't need militant commercialism as its leadership design. Nor does it need only tin soldiers to guide it.
Political diplomacy is civility, and both men and women can be used for that process to produce a livable world for men, for women, and for children. What could be simpler than designated inclusion? Anything less is false imprisonment on a grand scale where women must be directed by men alone.