Letters to the Editor
cardshark
Published Letters: 146 Editor's Choice: 18
-
Welcome comrade
[Read the article: Nullifying the press]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A letter writer (ironically named Jay) writes:
"Dude, you have a pencil and a laptop. That doesn't make you a contributor in leading the U.S. federal government. You're there to report what you witness, not to govern."
in response to:
"the attempt to downgrade the press as a player within the executive branch, to make it less important in running the White House and governing the country."
I'll be charitable and assume you unintentianally misunderstood, rather than assuming you are trying to muddy the waters.
The words here are important and I suggest you examine them more closely. Mr. Rosen is saying that the press used to be a "player", and that its influence had an impact on those that govern. He wasn't suggesting that they should be able to assign policy.
You further write:
"Every time I read stuff like this, I get closer to believing there should be a licensing system for practicing journalists, as is the case for lawyers, accountants, etc."
I'm sorry, but do you really believe this drivel? Lawyers are licensed becuase court procedures are very complex, laws are complex, and there is no fundamental right to "be a lawyer".
On the other hand, if you want to represent yourself in court, you have a right to do so, without being licensed. Likewise, if you want to do your own taxes, you have the right to do so. If you want to keep your own books in your personal business, you don't need a license and you don't have to hire an accountant. The laws requiring licensing are to protect the *consumer* from fraudulent practices, not to impose a burden on the lawyers or the accountants.
On the other hand, there is a fundamental right to be a journalist, inscribed in the very first amendment of the bill of rights, and I quote:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
I think requiring licensing for journalists counts as "abridging the freedom [of the press]", don't you?
-
Nixon?!
[Read the article: Party foul]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm surprised to read that Nixon "espoused" a conservation ethic, here on Salon.
The fact is that Nixon's congress had a veto-proof democratic majority when the EPA was established, over his initial objections. He eventually switched sides when he saw that it was inevitable, and now he gets all the credit for it. Over and over I hear that Nixon "established the EPA" (which I assume you are referring to), and it really makes me cringe.
Teddy Roosevelt, on the other hand, was a conservative of a caliber we've not seen since his presidency. He was truly a visionary, and I'm continually amazed at the varied and sundry duplicitous methods his heirs have invented to dismantle his legacy of protecting the environment and busting monopolies.
Nixon was an opportunistic hack and a criminal, nothing more.
-
Didn't his momma tell him?
[Read the article: A Democrat knocks Colbert, says Bush "deserves some respect"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]No one "deserves" respect or trust. They are earned. In fact, politicians are at the bottom of the list in the unearned respect deserving olympics. But hey, I wouldn't expect a career politician to understand that.
-
Meaningless
[Read the article: Pelosi: Impeachment is "off the table"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It only takes one representative to bring impeachment charges. Unless Nancy can speak for the entire house, her statement is meaningless.
Sure, the 'pubs can impeach a president over nothing, but for the dems it's off the table when there's possible treason involved. What a great government we have.
-
Perhaps
[Read the article: The tears of Snow]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Al-Qaida doesn't believe in transparency."
Maybe you should allocate more of your vocal capacity to explaining how we're different from Al-Qaida, instead of how we're the SAME, Tony. It's the sameness that we, the people you're addressing, are concerned about.
-
Maybe it should be
[Read the article: Who wants to be a MILF?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]M.Y.L.F.
That would be some small measure less offensive. Not that I really get offended by fucking words, personally. Words are just tools we use to communicate, and language is a barrier to true expression, in my opinion. Anyone who has ever had a feeling that they couldn't quite translate into words knows what I mean.
I can see that the baby tees are not exactly tasteful though.
-
They should take a cue from Matt Drudge
[Read the article: From Truthout, an apology, of sorts, for reporting Rove's indictment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]They should just delete the story, and anything that refers to the story, as Matt Drudge would do.
-
Ask yourself why the Israelis are acting unilaterally
[Read the article: No to Israeli unilateralism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Palestinians thus far have agreed to many concessions, but failed to fulfill even the most basic: recognizing the right of Israel to exist, and teaching that Israel exists in schools. Israelis have, in the past, implemented many of the agreements they have committed to. What have the Palestinians ever done besides a temporary cease-fire?
And I don't think you'd put the quotes around "security barrier" if you had had your family blown up by a religious fanatic. I'm constantly disappointed in Salon's completely one-sided depiction of Israeli-Palestinian relations. It's so bad, it's like a caricature of the UN.
The Israelis are oh-so-evil for building a wall, but no mention of suicide bombers in the entire piece, the implicit assumption being, I suppose, that all the violence will just go away if the evil Zionists would just live up to their end of the deal.
I'm not asking for the other extreme, bias toward Israel. But how about some half-hearted attempt at balance, nuance, all those things we liberals are supposedly good at?