Letters to the Editor
jebldmm
Published Letters: 933 Editor's Choice: 164
-
I can think of three groups that would try to spin this
[Read the article: National journalists believe you should trust them]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]1) U.S. officials/Neocons who are trying to start a war with Iran
2) Iranian officials who want the west to be confused about how close Iran is to nuclear weapons, because they think that having nuclear weapons sooner rather than later will stave off an attack from the U.S.
3) People who hate the current Iranian government and want to give the U.S. Neocons an excuse to attack Iran. This includes dissidents in Iran, Iranian expatriates, and officials from several other middle Eastern nations.
The article would not threaten the identity of the "leakers" if they told us they were Iranian insiders, U.S. governemtn Insiders, or officials of some other country. The only reason I can think of to hide the source completely is that the source is in a body that should be releasing the information publicly, but isn't because of some kind of political shenanigans. If they identify that source, it would make the organization look bad. But the media don't exist to protect organizations. For example, if the IAEC had inside information it wanted released, but didn't want to be the ones to do it. That's a stretch, though. I can't see why they would have to leak information. The big question on this story isn't who the media are protecting, it's why are they protecting them with complete anonymity.
-
Isn't it a little late for April Fools jokes?
[Read the article: Florida gives voting rights back to felons]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I really don't understand this. It defies what I know about Republicans. They are supposed to be working hard to stop minorities and the poor from voting, not increasing their numbers. What's the spin? Are my perceptions wrong, or is there something going on that's not obvious?
-
A Christmas Story
[Read the article: My backroad memorial]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Christmas Eve... about 1997. Family driving down a country road, looking at Christmas lights. Young city boy, just got a fancy car for Christmas, decides to drive on empty country roads to test how fast it will go. A man, a father, ends up dead, along with his pre-teen daughter and the passenger in the fancy new car. Another daughter ends up disabled for life. The young man, who was guilty of nothing more than wanting to test out his new car, ended up doing jail time for manslaughter. It must have been hard for the judge to convict him, since most of us have done something equally stupid. But he was responsible for the deaths of 3 people, and the permanent disability of another.
I know it's romantic to live out old dreams. I remember the feeling of speeding down the road when I was a teenager. But I'm not a teenager any more. I'm smarter. I learn from my mistakes, and those of others. Don't speed. Don't make your kids - or somebody else's kids - grow up without a parent, or simply not grow up at all, just so you can relive a memory. Find some other way of celebrating your brother's life... one that doesn't endanger yourself or others.
-
There is one piece missing
[Read the article: A light bulb goes off on the Washington Post editorial page]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The story so far has been about the prosecutors who were dismissed because they didn't toe the party line. What about the ones that did? I remember reading a recent study about how Democratic politicians were prosecuted at a higher rate than Republicans over the last few years, but the article was light on detail. I think we need to make the case that there were policians who were prosecuted even though the evidence was inadequate, or Republicans who were not prosecuted when the evidence was overwhelming. That's what will close this triangle and show the public that the actions of the Bush administration were not simply political games - they represented a failure of his system to protect the American people from criminals, and a willingness to use our legal system to punish people for the crime of daring to run in an election as a Democrat.
-
This is an excellent example of a "straw man" argument
[Read the article: Real inconvenient truths]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"It is true that there is a peace-at-any-cost wing of the Democrat Party, but I do not belong to it. Some members of that wing still adhere to the 1960s hippie credo (descending from Jean-Jacques Rousseau) that people=good, society=evil, and (as the Beatles said) all you need is love."
Okay... name a prominent Democrat who says that the United States should never get involved in a war, regardless of the cost, because love will find a way. It's really easy to criticize Democrats if you set them up as fools who think that "love" is the answer to every problem. The reality is that Democrats are as willing to fight to defend this country as Republicans. What we are not willing to do is to fight wars make us look weak and incompetent while not achieving any recognizable goals and costing untold lives. Love isn't going to solve the worlds problems, but hate sure as hell isn't going to, either.
-
So, he's moved from Orwell to Heller
[Read the article: It's like bringing them home sooner, only different]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Anybody else see the similarity to "Catch-22"? Maybe encouraging Bush to read wasn't such a good idea.