Letters to the Editor
dendrio
Published Letters: 200 Editor's Choice: 27
-
Oil Companies
[Read the article: Pelosi: Iraq is the president's responsibility]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And with whom do the oil companies do business? Dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Burma, Iran etc. And to whom do those dictators give some of that oil money? To terrorists. So who is really offering aid and comfort to the terrorists, the Democrats who an effective anti-terror strategy or Big Oil whose dollars flow into the terrorists' pockets? "Oh," says the so-called conservative, "That's just the way the free market works, so we'll have to live with it. But we'll drop bombs on innocents to let the terrorists know we don't like it one whit. That'll learn'em!"
-
Dear Sen. Lieberman:
[Read the article: Lieberman vs. compromise; McCain vs. everyone]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What if the President's proposal for a "new way forward" is just plain idiotic, as in, "it won't work" or "that's just batshit crazy"? Is criticizing a plan that won't work "partisan"? Is fixing or improving a flawed plan "inside the beltway compromise"? What if his "new way forward" (and just how many baseless assumptions are built into that phrase anyway?) is to nuke Bagdad and Falluja? What if his plan is to create special reservations for Iraqis and repopulate and rebuild the cities with American colonists? What if his plan is to do absolutely nothing differently but to change the terminology and definitions so that on paper there's the appearance of a "a new way forward?"
I ask you these seemingly ridiculous questions, sir, because I'm mightily confused as to exactly under what circumstances you believe it is acceptable to be "partisan" i.e. criticize the President, aside from situations involving fellatio.
Thank you for having your aides take the time to skim this letter and send a canned reply that superficially relates to my topic but doesn't actually address the issue I have raised.
-
Eyes Rolling Out of My Head and Onto the Floor
[Read the article: White House response to Democrats' plan: Where is it?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Whether he's at the helm of an oil company or at the helm of the nation, the President expects other people to do his job for him. Looks likes the hard-working, can-do spirit of his Pilgrim forefathers has been diluted and denuded down to nothing.
Wait, the Pilgrims got the Wampanoag to save their asses and returned the favor by exterminating them. Maybe the Democrats should think twice about extending a helping hand after all.
-
To GimmeGirl
[Read the article: The holy blitz rolls on]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Allow me to play Devil's (or is it God's?) Advocate:
The reason why your last (assuming you haven't posted again while I write this) post is unpersuasive to many people who feel its okay for a pharmacist to refuse service (treatment) to someone is because they simply can't imagine a circumstance where they would be denied anything they wanted or needed for religious or ethical reasons.
Furthermore, any hypothetical attempt to get get them imagine such a situation is doomed to failure because they simply would not extend the same "freedom of conscience" to vegans, vegetarians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. that they keep for themselves. They justify this by saying that "America's a Christian country," or the slightly more sophisticated (root-word, "sophist") iteration, "America is founded on Judea-Christian principles," both of which are a code phrases for "Those people are second class people undeserving of the same consideration I receive ... if indeed they are really people at all."
A case in point is the fact that some Muslim cab drivers are refusing to drive people carrying or under the influence of alcohol. Right-leaning Christians decry this as evidence of creeping Islamofascism, when an identical stance by a Christian cab driver would be regarded as a brave and courageous act of conscience.
For my part, I see both the Muslim cab driver issue and the pro-life pharmacist issue as the same thing - a rude intrusion into my personal business under the guise of making the world a better place. And whatever their victories in defending their behavior, or regulating ours, as long as there's home brew and oral sex, they still lose.
-
How the Irish Saved Civilization ...
[Read the article: The holy blitz rolls on]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Is pop history. While it's true that a great many documents from antiquity were preserved in the Irish monestaries, the book omits one huge fact. The Renaissance started in Italy, not Ireland. Why did the Renaissance start in Italy? Because the Italian city-states were trading with the Ottomans who had also preserved much of antiquity via the Byzantines, whom they conquered. At the risk if inciting anti-Islamic feeling among those with bad high school memories, the Ottomans also taught us algebra.