Letters to the Editor
Jeffrey P. Harrison
Published Letters: 387 Editor's Choice: 40
-
How many times
[Read the article: Why Hillary Clinton should be winning]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Do we need to elect a president by a minority of voters before we decide to fix the system?
Winner take all systems merely disenfranchise 49.5% of the voters in a bi-polar contest and many more in a multi-polar contest. Your arguments about caucuses vs primaries are unimpressive. In many primaries, Republicans can vote for their preferred opponent. For that matter, given the multivariate nature of the American electorate, why do we essentially only have two parties?
The results of the current system (the whole system: nomination through general election) has been such a smashing success that less than 50% of the electorate bothers to vote. Which, in turn, means that our elected officials got there on typically less than 25% of the populace's vote. Wonderful. And this is the system you claim makes sense?
I don't think so. You may be able to legitimately claim that, if the Democrats used the Republican WTA system, Three Names would have the nomination sewn up but you can't claim that that system makes sense if you also want to claim that politician X was selected by the majority of the voters.
-
Unfortunately, it's not gonna happen
[Read the article: "We'll make you see death"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The body politic doesn't care that much and they will probably return many of the same amoral people to government when we have our "accountability moment" this November (this is always presuming that Shrub doesn't suspend the election using the powers granted by the "Patriot" act.
-
And the actual results
[Read the article: The IMF gets gloomy-doomy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]will be a measure of the accuracy of the HTWW world view. I'm betting against you. I'm betting that there'll be a downturn. But the US has done such a good job of imposing sanctions on other countries and refusing to allow companies to do business with other countries that there's a thriving world business that doesn't depend on the US in any way because they can't. I'm thinking that the world will feel a chill, then realize that the world as they know it hasn't come to an end, and then get on with finding new markets and doing business. The end result will be a stronger not-dependent-on-the-US world economy.
By the way, you need to be a bit more sagacious about bandying about the Great Depression phraseology. When an American says The Great Depression, he refers to the depression that occurred in the US in the 1930s which itself was one of many depressions around the world which caused a world wide depression. That world wide depression's proximate cause was not the Fed's mismanagement of liquidity in America, it was the mercantilist policies of many of the world's major powers (hence the importance of the Bretton Woods agreements in 1944 which stressed the importance of multi-lateral trade). So, while we have liquidity issues in the world, we don't have the same trade issues (except, of course, the US which I've just mentioned).
-
Well, actually, Mr. McCain is right
[Read the article: McCain's misguided role model on deficit reduction]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If the GNP grows, the government takes in more tax money. If the tax rates remain constant and spending does not increase, the deficit will go down. It really is that simple.
If, on the other hand, you intend to cut taxes and continue to burn money like the autumn leaves on some stupid, misguided war, the boundary conditions of the previous statement won't be met. And the deficit won't go down. In fact, we need the deficit to disappear and become a surplus so that we can pay down our debt. If the you had credit card debt that, paying the minimum, sucked up the percentage of your income that the USG is spending on debt service, you'd be bankrupt. But the gov can print money... I mean T-Bonds and T-Bills....
-
America is in Denial
[Read the article: John Yoo: Spearhead or scapegoat?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First through the use of euphemisms (aka PC speak) where torture becomes harsh interrogation techniques. "Harsh interrogation techniques" does not evoke the same visceral response that torture does with it's thumbscrews, splints under the fingernails, the rack and iron maiden (although we are much more efficient than our medieval predecessors who had to have someone cranking the rack, we just hang prisoners from the ceiling and let gravity do the work - I'm amazed we aren't using meat hooks.) Even you frequently use the "harsh interrogation techniques" in lieu of the more descriptive "torture". The PC language used in the popular press obscures the fact that we are using many of the same techniques, some updated, some not, as medieval torturers. It makes me ashamed of my country and the uniform I once wore.
Secondly, we're like parents. Most parents can't believe that their son or daughter has done some heinous thing. Nobody wants to believe that the President of the United States, sworn to uphold the Constitution, could trash it so thoroughly. But they can believe that somebody else's son or daughter could be responsible and are prepared to hang them from the nearest lamppost. John Yoo fits this picture.
And finally, as a variant of secondly above, throughout history "the people" have typically believed that the country's troubles rested on the shoulders of the King's counselors, and not the King himself (this was typically a delusion). John Yoo also fits this picture.
And, like the royal counselors of yore, Mr. Yoo is not himself responsible but, also frequently like the royal counselors of yore, Mr. Yoo is a thoroughly despicable person.
-
If you teach an animal or a person
[Read the article: How Iraq spawned wider terrorist chaos]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]a lesson in meanness,
don't be surprised if they learn it.
Will Rodgers.