Letters to the Editor
McGarrett50
Published Letters: 28 Editor's Choice: 2
-
One Conservative's Opinion
[Read the article: Why conservatives love Barack Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Obviously, I can't speak for Rove. Kristol, etc but I am a conservative who hope Obama wins the nomination. I will be voting Republican but I would rather the other party nominate someone I can stand so that whichever way the election goes, I can feel OK. It's kind of back to observation about British politics in the late 80s. The Labour Party under Kinnock was clearly crazy and people would ask, "Can the Tories win forever?" The answer of course was, "No, we only have to win until Labour comes to its senses." Labour did by making Blair leader. Blair promptly won and governed in a way that wasn't radical leftist.
So, why Obama rather than Clinton?
Because even though he is very liberal, I do not perceive him as overly dogmatic. I believe that he is someone that conservatives could do business with. In contrast, the Clintons (let's not kid ourselves, Bill will be involved in everything) have zero credibility and will keep us in a state of constant political conflict as we have had for too long. The simple fact is that Bush 1, Clinton 1, Bush 2, Clinton 2 is simply a bad outcome because this is a republic, not an oligarchy.
-
Great Article
[Read the article: Irving the Snowchicken is coming to town]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The truest family traditions are the ones invented by the family. I also like Sabina's Kwanzabuck.
-
Trends in controlling technology
[Read the article: The year in technology]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One of the items this year that got me thinking was the way that Rockstar Games Manhunt 2 game was effectively banned in the US. The simple version is that countries overseas banned the product which made it more costly for Rockstar to market multiple versions of the game to deal with varied regulations.
Why is this important? The day is coming when China has more users of Google, etc than "free speech countries" and that it just might become more cost effective for Google, etc to standardize on the Chinese version of their products which limit use elsewhere.
Notice I said "might" not "will." I am enough of a free market person to know that Google has incentives to not do this and there would be competitors who would step in to offer what people need/want. Also, China will potentially continue to liberalize as it gets wealthy and integrates more horizontally with the rest of the world. But, I was genuinely surprised when EU countries banned a game and that impacted whether the game could be bought in the US. Given that most countries do not have the equivalent of the First Amendment which is as near an absolute right in the US as there is, the full globalization of technology will create some conflicts where before they did not exist.
-
Observations on the Debate
[Read the article: The debate through the eyes of Clinton loyalists]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]1. Democratic views on the War on terror make very little sense. I think all 4 candidates indicated that they were willing to attack Al Quaeda in Pakistan's borders wihtout agreement from Pakistan. Hillary Clinton even indicated that she would use nuclear weapons against a state in response to a nuclear attack on the US by terrorists based in a state. Fair enough. But, they all next described how they want to get out of Iraq as quick as possible. Now, what is the likely outcome in Iraq if we withdraw quickly. Isn't there a reasonable probability that terrorists will take over? If Pakistan with a partially pro-US governament and military is dangerous, what would an anti-US Iraq allied with Iran and Syria be like?
2. Obama and Edwards could have easily beaten Clinton in the debate. After one of her statements of how experienced and ready she is, one of them should have finally just called her on it and said that she really doesn't have any more experience than the rest of them. The simple fact is that being the wife of a governor and being the First Lady do not count for anything. So, beyond that, she is a 1+ term Senator. Not much more than Edwards who at least can add to his resume that he actually did run for Vice President. And, when Hillary started to take credit for the change that Bill Clinton made in the 90's (one example: budget balancing), Edwards or Obama could have simply replied that the biggest change under Bill Clinton was the Republican takeover of Congress and Clinton's compromising with them on things like welfare reform.
I know there is a perception that the MSM hate Hillary but the exact opposite has been true. She was annointed as a brilliant, national leader based on no actual contributions of any kind. I think the voters subconsciously know this and the results are showing.