Letters to the Editor
The Reality Kid
Published Letters: 358
-
A damning and cynical critique of the American voter
[Read the article: The GOP's cheerful viciousness]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What you've written represents a damning and cynical critique of the American voting population. Surely there is a more constructive and effective way of countering the Republican strategy. What you are essentially counseling is that the Democrats use the same tactics as the Republicans to ensure that voters will not vote based on a rational assessment of policy issues (or even self-interest). Such advice may win elections, but won't it cause even further damage to your political system over the longer term?
I must admit to being pretty cynical myself with respect to Mr. Obama's agenda, but I have to profess much admiration for his consistent refusal to play the game in the shallow and dirty manner of the Republicans. More particularly, he appears to be doing it in the name of giving the voters the credit they deserve. Are you suggesting that hope be abandoned when it comes to the wisdom of the American electorate and accept that US politics is a reality-show cage match?
-
Ondelette - Thanks for links
[Read the article: The GOP's cheerful viciousness]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Lately, for some strange reason, I've found myself pondering the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007...
-
"Greenwaldian" - A Cautionary Note
[Read the article: Do journalists have any obligations beyond their self-interest?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I suppose it depends on your definition of "Greenwaldian", but isn't the entry of this term into the journalistic vernacular a possible first step towards marginalization? Used snidely or sardonically like this, it's intended as a put-down. If this usage catches on, what should be a good thing (informed and rigorous fact-based analysis) may be transformed and twisted into an insult. Like "elite" or "academic". Although these are perhaps not the best examples, maybe you see what I mean - as in in "Oh, don't go all Greenwaldian on me..."
Surely this is to be resisted and discouraged!
-
Tonight on Letterman?
[Read the article: New heights of stupidity]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Drudge is reporting that Obama will go on Letterman tonight to explain. Don't know if that's true, but here's hoping that he doesn't try to explain (or worse, apologize). There's no quicker way of digging a deeper hole than trying to explain a misunderstood joke or reference. (Nothing lamer, either: "You see, the "pig"...the "pig" is McCain's policies, okay...and the "lipstick", well, that's McCain's attempt to...")
-
Boneyard of Empires
[Read the article: The government, the media and Afghanistan]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]To begin with, I'd like to give a "shout out" to What Constitution? for the comment on page 5 ("Collective Memory") and to Svensker on page 6 ("Innocent Lives").
Obama has made clear his intention to pursue more war, both in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. McCain appears to prefer to pursue more war in Iraq, but one suspects he'll come around, if he hasn't already. Both "men" are clearly fans of illegitimate war, not to mention politics based on fear.
If you accept that it is not in the United States effort to bomb and kill Afghans, Pakistanis and Iraqis (and since Glenn brought up the writing of Chris Floyd, you may wish to check out Mr. Floyd's website for excellent writing on the horrifically under-reported killing in Somalia), then I'm not sure how good conscience allows you to vote for either McCain or Obama.
One marvels continuously at how easily Americans vote against self-interest.
You may need to peruse some foreign publications to determine the magnitude of the bombing in Afghanistan, but I think you'll find that 2,000 (500lb and 2,000lb) bombs were dropped on that poor and pitiable country in the first six months of 2008 (contributing immeasurably to the resurgence of the taliban).
Even in the US, reports confirm that air strikes on Pakistan have been occurring for more than 90 days without an AUMF (but nobody seems to care...), and with much the same result as in Afghanistan in terms of innocent lives (although you may have to turn to foreign publications to avoid the US military's confusion about "taliban" alliances in Pakistan).
Both candidates are pitching change, but you can bet on one thing that won't change: the slaughter of innocents in the name of American interests.
-
Further to pow wow's (yay!) latest post
[Read the article: The government, the media and Afghanistan]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Specifically, on the topic of the "surge" -
1) Obama has proclaimed the surge a "success" beyond "our wildest dreams".
2) On the one-year anniversary of his testimony before Congress, in an interview with the BBC, Petraeus apparently disagrees with Obama (and Lieberman), "noting that he doesn't expect that he’ll ever be able to use the word victory to describe what happens there" (as reported by Jason Ditz - I have not heard the BBC interview).
3) “The dramatic drop in violence in Iraq is due in large part to a secret programme the US military has used to kill terrorists, according to a new book by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Bob Woodward,” CNN reported. (I'll also note that killing "terrorists" effectively addresses any doubts over their habeas rights...)
4) Speaking of "detainee's rights", slipped into a proposal to Congress re same is a Bush administration request for Congress to confirm a declaration of war against "Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and associated organizations", essentially confirming that the US is in a never-ending state of war.
-
Let's not forget...
[Read the article: Where are all the female conductors?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...Iona Brown (Academy of St. Martin's in the Field) and Jeanne Lamon (Tafelmusik).
Not the point, I know, but still, important to remember to celebrate those who have broken through.
That said, perhaps this also begs the question: Is conducting a peculiarly male fascination, with women less inclined due to lack of interest? I suppose I'm guilty of perpetuating stereotypes if I suggest that conducting may appeal to male egos and vanities more so than female...especially amongst the uninformed, who may perceive it as exactly that (male ego/vanity) and therefore not view it as a credible role for an aspiring musician?