Letters to the Editor
jebldmm
Published Letters: 933 Editor's Choice: 164
-
It's not just immigration - It's what the immigration debate shows about the right
[Read the article: Shades of the reconquista]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Mexican people are not stupid. They know that Republicans often group legal Mexican immigrants in with illegals, and that the people who protest so loudly for border fences on the Mexican border don't seem to be particularly worried about our wide open northen border where Caucasian "illegal aliens" can safely and easily pass into the U.S.. It's pretty obvious that much of the outrage toward "illegals" is actually simply hostility toward brown-skinned people in general.
-
So what does this make Republicans?
[Read the article: The conventional wisdom that would not die]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]For a very long time, Republicans have been claiming that the Democratic Party was full of liberal extremists, and that the Republican Party represented the mythical "middle". The media seemed to go along with this, emphasizing how "liberal" Democrats were, while claiming that "Soccer Moms" or "NASCAR fans" (or whatever group was currently supposed to represent the "middle") would always vote Republican because they wanted more moderate government. Meanwhile, the Republican party has been moving so far to the right that any further movement would put them firmly in fascist territory. So now the Democrats are in the middle. Where does that put Republicans? How about on the far right, where they belong?
I don't really agree with this new media storyline, but I'm not sure it's entirely bad for the Democratic Party.
-
Free speech is free speech
[Read the article: Have you heard my rape joke?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What the heck is a university doing judging the value of the content of a privately published newsletter? This isn't about whether what he said is appropriate or whether it's funny - it's a pretty simple matter of free speech. People are allowed to say things that are inappropriate and tell jokes that aren't funny. Government funded schools are not allowed to take action against students simply for saying/writing things that are tasteless. I think that sometimes we confuse our right not to read something with a non-existant right to keep people from writing it. If this were a private school, the rules might be different. They aren't paying student tuition with taxpayer dollars.
-
History repeats itself...
[Read the article: Carville: Dean's leadership "Rumsfeldian"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Watching Rumsfeld resign the other day and listening to his resignation speech from the Oval Office as he put himself on the same pedestal as Winston Churchill, I made some vague comment to my wife along the lines of: "That sonofabitch hypocrite wouldn't deserve to lick Churchill's shoes if he were alive. If anyone is a real Churchill these days, it's Dean".
Churchill was turfed by the voters of Britain shortly after WWII, during which period he had pretty much saved Great Britain and the hopes of Nazi-occupied Europe through sheer obstinacy, courage, and cunning. Dean could have given up on his country and party after the Democratic Primaries of 2004 but persisted in seeking the DNC leadership through sheer obstinacy, knowing that the Democratic Party path had to change or the government of this country would be GOP-led for the next generation. He could have followed the traditional Democratic Party gameplan of playing lackluster catch-up, and we would now be going through the fourth quarter of the game with no quarterback, no defense, no offense, no coach, and no hope. A corrupt GOP congress would still be firmly entrenched and the American public would still be believing the Democrats to be the same old "wishy-washy flip-floppers" that they had been led to believe they were by a right-wing biassed media. His courage in veering from traditionalism to give the voting American public a true alternative to the neocons plan of self-destruction is a lesson to everyone everywhere: Stand up for what you believe, not what you want others to believe about what you stand for. His cunning in pushing for the 50-state initiative and a variety of other strategies designed to culminate in the results of Nov 7th clearly prove that Dean has the heart, the guts, and the brains to lead the DNC and continue to fight the good fight. He makes the best "Churchill" we could hope for if we want to win this war to rebuild our nation. And Carville doesn't deserve to lick his shoes.
jebldmm
-
Are all Democrats traitors?
[Read the article: Fox isn't the only "fair and balanced" one]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying, 'Let's cut and run.'And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.'"
Initially, I was offended by the idea that a reporter would dare challenge the patriotism of an elected Congressman simply becasue he is a Muslim. Then I re-read the interview, and I am even more offended that this reporter seems to be implying that ALL Democrats are "working with" the enemies of the United States. This is the kind of crap I read on Free Republic - not something that belongs on one of the most powerful news channels in America.
-
Why would regulation be inappropriate?
[Read the article: Anorexia claims another model]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We regulate athletes use of steroids, because they are dangerous, even though some men would willingly use steroids to have a successful athletic career. OSHA regulates worker safety conditions all over the country, even though some workers would willingly put themselves in danger in order to earn more money. We don't allow airlines to only hire young, thin, and pretty female flight attendants. Why not prohibit modelling agencies from requiring women to be thin to the point of starvation? I'm not suggesting we should ban "thin" models - but it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to ban workplace policies that literally require women to starve themselves to death in order to be employable. What is the difference between starving yourself to death for a modelling career and exposing yourself to dangerous chemicals in a factory? Why should employers be allowed to require one, but not the other?