Letters to the Editor
Valkyrie607
Published Letters: 121 Editor's Choice: 3
-
War! What is it good for? (OT)
[Read the article: Bush and McCain's shared foreign policy approach]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Hell, I wish the Iroquois and the Choctaw and all the other tribes had had a better army when the god damn european invaders first came in. Wouldn't that have been nice? If the god damn "pilgrims" and all their ilk had simply kept on their little plot of land? If the Iroquois and all the rest could have enforced their treaty rights?" -- Jkalos
A better army would have done no good, the Europeans had technology on their side just as we had against the Iraqi. There is also evidence that the native had experienced a great die-off shortly before first contact much like what happened in Europe in the black death. I suppose that the fates were just not with the natives. I have several native friends down here; they really are not "over it" yet. --bucky1
I just want to point out that the Native Americans suffered an estimated 90% mortality rate from introduced European diseases, e.g. smallpox, diptheria, measles, cholera. By the time European migration to the New World was seriously underway, 9 out of 10 Native Americans were dead, the rest of them were seriously traumatized, and many villages were deserted. Read William Bradford's account of the Pilgrims' arrival in America sometime--he described empty villages, fields plowed and ready for the planting. "God has struck our enemies down before us," he says, or something to that effect. Some folks think that without that factor, the Native Americans and the Europeans might have been relatively evenly matched, militarily speaking; superior tech versus superior tactics.
Anyway, it's not a repeatable scenario, and a standing army would probably have done the Native Americans no good at all.
-
Mukasey's crying over 9/11?
[Read the article: Michael Mukasey's tearful lies]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Perhaps the real source of the emotion is the loss of his own self-respect.
-
Eh?
[Read the article: Planned Parenthood's condoms for women]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]My condom-wearing men have all seemed to enjoy themselves pretty thoroughly. Was it all just an act? Who can act that well?
Also, to smallfox and others with pill problems: I highly recommend the "NuvaRing." It's the same hormones but at a much lower dose, because you don't ingest them; a little ring sits in your vagina and releases the hormones over the course of 4 weeks. You only have to think about it twice a month. I gave up the pill because of mood swings and yeast infections. Now I'm using the ring and I'm totally happy with it. My guy didn't even notice the first time I wore it. ;)
-
oops
[Read the article: Planned Parenthood's condoms for women]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sorry, I meant to say over the course of 3 weeks. The 4th week you take it out.
-
@BlueAmberol
[Read the article: Opus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I appreciate your points about symbols in politics and cartoons.
I don't support Hillary, but I take issue with your reason for not supporting her, the fact that "In the Muslim countries, a woman is at a disadvantage. That's not fair but that's the way they are. We cannot vote for the President of Iran."
Funny--we cannot vote for the president of Iran. But apparently, they (the voters in "the Muslim countries") can apparently dictate our choice of a leader.
It just doesn't seem reasonable to me to vote against a woman on the grounds that leaders of "the Muslim countries" would not be sufficiently intimidated. I mean, come on--what are they going to do? This hypothetical female leader would be the President of the United States. We spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined. I, for one, would love to see the look on the King of Saud's face at that moment.
I think of the profound impact it would have on kids everywhere, on little girls around the globe, to see this position of utmost power and authority occupied by a woman. Can you weigh that against the possibility of the Iranians being overconfident because, well, after all, it's just a woman they're facing?
-
Still Happening!
[Read the article: Through a bong, darkly]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The "sixties," meaning the counterculture, is still happening.
How do I know?
I spent 2000-2003 living a "hippie" life--sleeping in the back of my vanagon, building yurts, farming, playing music, moving from place to place, navel-gazing, taking drugs, attending the occasional protest (got pepper-sprayed in Portland), dancing topless in all-night drumming circles. All of it. And there were plenty of folks in it with me.
Did you know, more intentional communities (a.k.a. communes) were started in the 90's than all the 60's and 70's?
The main difference between now and then appears (to me, from my rarified perspective) to be media coverage.
-
Can feminism and porn coexist?
[Read the article: Who put this feminism in my porno?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yup.
Next!
-
@ Greonhagen
[Read the article: Sizing up Petraeus on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How many Iraqi civilians have to die before you stop supporting the war?
-
Just one thing...
[Read the article: More on Michael Mukasey's false 9/11 and FISA claims]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Blogger, please!"
...cracked me up.
-
It makes me bitter...
[Read the article: Mukasey dishonesty update]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]that Obama gets harped upon merely for being in San Francisco when he uttered the word "bitter," as if his location were further proof of the toxic "elite" meme.
Meanwhile, Mukasey, also in San Francisco, utters statements he can't possibly believe are true, and there is nary a peep. Deliberately deceiving large masses of people strikes me as quintessentially elitist. Where is the outrage?