Letters to the Editor
Scientician
Published Letters: 534 Editor's Choice: 1
-
shooter:
[Read the article: Reply to Dan Drezner]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Once again, the wealth of the world is not finite. It can grow or diminish depending who is in charge of it. I offer Zimbabwe as the quintessential example of how what was the "breadbasket of Africa" is now a famine ravaged hell hole. On the other hand we have Hong Kong, one of the most densely populated places, and one of the richest. The proper question isn't who has a lot of stuff, it's who allows their people easiest access to the market.
If you want alternative power, make easier access to regulatory approvals, or sites like that blocked by Ted Kennedy. If you want more food in the third world dismantle protections around GM crops. In short, shortages are created by politics, not by greed.
It's hard to say this without being insulting or derisive, but you actually aren't trolling here. You made a point, argued for it with logically plausible statements and did it absent any overt insults (I don't know what the Ted Kennedy thing is in reference to, but it looks like an actual point). Seriously, do this more often.
Your earlier comments in this thread did not merit response. Particularly the one before this, which was only a tired attempt to appeal to extremes (note: to argue "A" is wrong does not make one a proponent of "Z").
As to this, I'd offer that ultimate free market: Somalia, which is hardly blossoming in splendor. Regulation has its place, as the recent debacles with Chinese pet food and lead laden childrens' toys reminds us. Greed has its downsides.
-
Shooter:
[Read the article: Reply to Dan Drezner]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sure. It would have been better to leave us wondering what the true state of Saddam's armaments were, and the people of Iraq under the thumb of a totalitarian dictator. Oh yeah, that's a truly humanitarian position.
1. Saddam was cooperating with the inspectors, who would have answered that question.
2. Objectively, the Iraqi people are worse off now than under saddam. More of them are dying, they have less access to education, electricity, health care and basic security from being blown up. Sucks but true. Perhaps you or I would choose to risk freedom from a tyrant, but the Iraqis weren't given any choice in the matter.
-
It's a point of pride actually...
[Read the article: Why is the Democratic Congress so unpopular?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That rank-and-file Democrats are actually operate in the real world, and would voice disapproval of their party for failing to do in office what they were elected to do.
Meanwhile >60% of Republican high-RWA lemmings will follow George Bush not only over the cliff, but help him find the cliff for them to all march over.
-
Working Conservative Majority
[Read the article: Why is the Democratic Congress so unpopular?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Matt Stoller at OpenLeft has done some good analysis on the problem and concludes that though we have a nominally Democratic congress (ie more D's than R's) ideologically we still have a conservative majority, particularly in the Senate.
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=672
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=685
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=696
I think this is exacerbated by the continuing conservative media landscape that Congress operates on. Sunday morning talk is still showing a huge conservative/republican bias in guest selection. The foreign policy klatch Glenn complains of is another prime example.
I really had hoped the Dems sweeping congress would change things a lot more. But the quickness in which the media ran to this "conservative dems made the difference" narrative showed the remaining power of these myths.
The nation is not conservative, but the beltway very much is.
That said, Pelosi and Reid will have to put their leadership jobs on the line at some point. Even if they are facing caucus revolts over these issues, it would be admirable for them to just let the revolt happen and out the "Bush Dog" conservative dems for the authoritarians they are.
-
As to stopping the war
[Read the article: Why is the Democratic Congress so unpopular?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We can't hide behind the 60 vote filibuster limit, nor even the 67 needed to override a veto.
Pelosi and Reid can simply not bring a funding bill to a vote and and defund the war that way.
No supermajorities are needed to not pass a bill, which is exactly the reason why the constitution forbids permanent appropriations for military spending. The war can only continue if the Speaker and Majority leader take affirmative action to bring a spending bill to the floor for a vote.
Obviously there is much to discuss in the merits of such a tactic, but it does remain true that McConnell nor Bush could do jack shit about it (short of illegally funding the war without congressional approval I suppose).
-
typo
[Read the article: Carl Levin reveals the Democrats' Iraq "strategy"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]4th paragraph: "beahve" -> behave
-
Recall that AIPAC
[Read the article: Carl Levin reveals the Democrats' Iraq "strategy"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Lobbied strongly to have the Democrats pull a "No attacking Iran" provision out of a bill earlier in the year.
Be worth linking to that post in an update Glenn. Even when the Democrats considered forbidding attacking Iran, they caved there too.
-
Anonymous:
[Read the article: Carl Levin reveals the Democrats' Iraq "strategy"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Everything is George Bush's fault. Except when someone points out the Democratic Congress is either in cahoots or is impotent. In which case it's the Jews' fault. For the 100% guaranteed war against Iran.
Thanks for clearing that up folks.
I'm not going to engage you when all you do is blatantly misstate our positions. Go be provocatively stupid elsewhere.
-
Empirical reality bites them in ass again
[Read the article: The enduring myth of Americans' dislike of investigations]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The nice thing about this one, is that there is no ambiguity to these polls. The overwhelming consensus is "keep on investigating until you get the truth"
Glenn (Greenwald) didn't even have to do anything particularly talented here - just note what these morons say, then note the polls proving them completely wrong. Beautiful.
The irony is that the Republican movement has spent years and years fostering an ever deeper distrust of government, culminating in the Clinton years. Now they are shocked that the beast of their creation is attacking them. Nobody believes the president anymore when he says "I'm hiding this for your own good." That the Bush Administration is a criminal empire helps of course, but I suspect even if they were squeaky clean, there would be substantial public distrust and support for investigations.