Letters to the Editor
Jeffrey P. Harrison
Published Letters: 354 Editor's Choice: 39
-
Your focus is not truly strategic
[Read the article: Taking stock of the war on terror]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The closest you come to the truly strategic is: "was to make an example of [Saddam] Hussein, to create a demonstration model to guide the behavior of anyone with the temerity to acquire destructive weapons or, in any way, flout the authority of the United States" and those words are Mr. Suskind's. The rest of your discussion is about the tactics to be used to implement that strategic vision. Nobody, apparently, questions the strategic view. Nobody questions the appropriateness of an American hegemony which is the true meaning of the strategic vision.
What should be obvious by now is that many people in the world don't want to be dominated by an American culture. The insurgencies and terrorism that have increased since the misguided attack on Iraq demonstrate this point. They also demonstrate the meaninglessness and stupidity of the so-called "War on Terror".
Insurgencies and terrorism are not war in the classic sense which is an attack by another country or people (and not an attack on poverty, drugs, or terrorism). Rather they usually reflect the existence of a substantial body of people with a grievance (the Symbionese Liberation Army, for example, didn't amount to a hill of beans so it's not always the case). But when it is the case, defeat in the traditional sense has no meaning. They will not go away until the underlying grievances have been addressed.
Our current difficulties will not go away until the underlying grievances (many of which are with us) are addressed and until we realize that we can be primus inter pares without dominating and/or directing the rest of the world as it pleases us.
-
They're both a pair of stinkin' liberals
[Read the article: Obama's plan to change the economy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The political parties that is.
The government has the responsibility to create a level economic playing field. One way this is done is by disclosure requirements - so we're all talking the same language. Another is to create rules that prevent some market participants from having an economic advantage - the G-S Act wasn't perfect but it did prevent the gamblers from having access to other people's money with which to do their betting which is the essence of our current difficulties.
They also have the responsibility to define economic crimes (remind me again - why aren't we prosecuting some of these mortgage brokers for fraud?).
It is not the government's role to hand out economic goodies. In living memory, the Republicrats have been giving them out to big business and the Demicans have always handed them out to the people. Neither vision of liberal giveaways is appropriate.
-
Harrumph
[Read the article: Have a daughter? You wimp]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]My highly scientific study shows that if you commit heinous crimes in a previous life, you have daughters. I know. I have 6.
-
Actually
[Read the article: Quote of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Giving 240K to that guy was not a problem of our education system, it was a problem with our political system that allows the government to feed propaganda out over the airwaves and nobody even gets their hand slapped. "No Child Left Behind" is a piece of crap that should be included in any MBA organizational behavior course as a prime example of getting what you reward which isn't necessarily what you want.
Unfortunately, Mr. Williams has a point. Unfortunately, as long as the classroom goes as slowly as the slowest student and unless the students want to learn and/or the parents want the student to learn, things aren't going to get any better.
Idiot moves by the Federal Government notwithstanding.