Letters to the Editor
Jeffrey P. Harrison
Published Letters: 464 Editor's Choice: 44
-
I think you need to go one step further
[Read the article: Follow-up to this morning's post re: Chris Matthews Show]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]For some time now the government has simply made declarative statements. When they make these statements, they never offer evidence to support the statement. We are simply expected to believe it. This practice certainly predates Shrub who has taken it to an extreme. I think the talking heads simply follow.
In this environment, the average citizen has to exercise extreme critical judgment to try and tease some truth out of what is being said. That is not necessarily an easy thing to do. Since these assertions, assumptions, and claims then form the basis for actions by the government, the fundamental, fatal flaw of "group think" can and does set in (think JFK and the Bay of Pigs). As an example, think of "Saddam Hussein has WMDs" and the next thing you know, everybody's running around like their hair was on fire and their asses was catchin'. My immediate reaction (aside from my skepticism) was Ja, und? He has no blue water Navy, he has no intercontinental air force, he has no ICBMs. Could he be a threat to the United States? A resounding NO. (which, of course, puts the lie to Shrub's claim of imminent threat and means that we violated the UN charter big time) Could he be a threat to some of his neighbors? Sure. And, some of those neighbors are allies of ours. Should our response to the actual situation be the same as our reaction to a real imminent threat? In my opinion, no. Was this discussed at the time? No. To the best of my knowledge, it remains undiscussed.
So, is it merely idiots sitting around blathering? No. It really is people enabling really stupid decisions to get made that have substantively deleterious consequences for both the United States and the rest of the world.
They probably oughtta be taken out and horsewhipped.
-
A few questions
[Read the article: Presidential candidates and "substance"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'd like to make a few observations and ask a few questions, Mr. Greenwald.
Observations:
I agree with you completely about the corrosive and money soaked culture in the beltway. It has been true for decades. How it has become so leads me to the second observation.
Washington/the federal government has accumulated way too much power. Since the power is concentrated all in one spot, it's easy for power brokers with lots of money to influence legislation in their favor. I firmly believe that the federal government has usurped many powers that actually belong to the states. If power was decentralized and the federal government reduced in size and authority, the money couldn't be corrupting our capital because it would have to be spent in all the state capitals in order to have an effect. Nobody's got that kind of money. The whole subject of state/federal power separation is a much larger topic that I wish to address at this point but the reality is that in order to fix something that is broken, you need to understand what broke before you can fix it. The first question I think needs answered is: why is the money there?
Specific proposals from a candidate for any office in this land are largely meaningless in and of themselves. 535 representatives make up the Congress of the United States. No piece of legislation, however carefully drafted, will survive to become law in its original form if, indeed, it becomes law at all. I am more interested in what approach to issues the candidates propose. One can tease this information out of specific proposals sometimes but not always. For example, the specific proposals I've heard don't talk about health care at all. They talk about health insurance which is not the same thing.
The question I'd like answered (plausibly in a future posting):
So what, realistically, could be done to undo the current corrupt governmental environment? Ignoring it is not actually an option for candidates as they are beholden to their donors, not the American people.
-
Men who hate women
[Read the article: Men who hate women on the Web]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I must confess to being shocked and appalled at your article. I would probably go so far as to say that your descriptions horrified me. This sort of behavior has a name and it's not sexual harassment. It's assault. I remember a conversation I had with my former brother in law who told me: "Jeff, in order to prove assault, all you have to prove is that you placed someone in fear. Battery is when you actually beat them up."
I believe that Ms. Sierra had every reason to be afraid. I firmly believe in free speech, very free speech especially and including criticizing any member of the government at any time of the day or night. But this is not free speech, this is assaulting someone. And I think that's illegal.
-
What new strategy?
[Read the article: Want change in Iraq? You've already got it]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When will the press come out and ask exactly what is different about what we are doing in Iraq aside from sending more troops? The strategy has always been to provide security in Iraq so they can do what we want them to. The only thing that has changed is the tactics being used to reach this strategic goal.
The real reason why the strategy hasn't worked so far is that the Iraqis don't want to do what we want them to. No change in tactics will alter this reality.
The emperor has no clothes, gentlemen. You need to be saying that. Not simply following the ongoing failure of the strategy.