Letters to the Editor
shipwack
Published Letters: 46 Editor's Choice: 3
-
No, these are not the options we have...
[Read the article: Alito, the nuclear option and the Democrats' thin hopes]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Do you devote your time, your energy and a reputation to this battle, or do you focus instead on GOP scandals that keep coming and a war that won't go away? There's a menu from which Democrats can choose now, and the choices they make may determine whether they keep winding up on the losing end of these votes in the future. "
Mr. Grieve, you left off the third, and best, option; "All the above".
No, the Democrats do not have to choose where to concentrate on. This is a large organization, not a church social committe. They should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time, especially since the Special Prosecutor is pre-chewing the gum for them.
The only losing course is where we cede yet another battle to the Republicans, saving our strength for "the more important fight", if they can ever figure out what that fight is going to be.
-
What is the problem here?
[Read the article: Polygamy loves company]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why is the argument of "If Heather can have two mommies, but not two mommies and a daddy?" summarily dismissed? It makes sense to me... the government should stay out of the business of regulating how consenting adults decide to relate to each other.
That being said, I've noticed two kinds of polygamists. The first group is made up of those conservative, patriachial polygamists you hear about hiding out in Utah that seem to define polygmay as soley "one man, many wives". The worst case being that man that was on 60 Minutes and had several wives, including one that was "married" at the age of ten or so. These types make me cringe that they are even have one spouse, let alone several spouses and children. However, legalising polygmay means that they won't use their family relaionship as a scam, such as having the "unwed mothers" in the family collect welfare benefits to be shared for the whole group.
Then there are my friends who define themselves as "poly-amourous". Free thinkers that collect themselves in groups of different sizes and compositions... MFF, FFM, FFFFM, FFMM, etc. I would like to see it possible for them to legalise their relationship and gain benefits that a "normal" couple would have.
As much as I dislike the first group, I can't condem them while condoning my friends choices...
-
Don't click on the link that claims to be a Google cache...
[Read the article: The long ride]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's a pornographic scat picture advertising an adult site...
Tacky and gross, to say the least....
-
The time for reaching out acroos the aisle is past.
[Read the article: Clueless Joe]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]::snip::Right now there aren't enough Senators willing to reach out across the aisle to work with their peers on the other side. Lieberman was always one of them. I may not always have agreed with him, but the idea of sending another hardcore partisan to the Senate would be far worse than having a decent moderate like Lieberman.
-- No Name Given
Mr. No Name... as time has proven again and again, "reaching out across the aisle" to the Republican Party these days means drawing back a bloody stump. How many times do they have to say (and prove!) they don't believe in compromise and bipartisanship before you wake up?
It used to be the two sides could meet in the "middle of the road", the place where there are only yellow lines and dead armadillos (as Jim Hightower would put it). Then the Republicans started standing further and further off the side of the road, so that now "meeting halfway" means we're standing in the right lane gutters.
What the party, and the country, definitely does -not- need is an enabler that will rubber-stamp whatever hurtful policy the (minority) right wing comes up with. I'm not talking only about Iraq, but also about health care, welfare reform, bankruptcy laws, and many more places where Lieberman has betrayed the working middle class men and women of this country. The time for appeasement is long past. We need some ball-kicking Democrats in the Senate.
Maybe Lamont is not the person that can do this. One thing has been proven, though. If he isn't, we can do the same thing 6 years from now.
-
"Amen Chorus" explained
[Read the article: But the insurgency is still in its "last throes," right?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]While I didn't hear the quote in context, I believe Mr. Snow was referring to a staple of some fundamentalist chruches where there is a section of church-goers (sometimes referred to as the "Amen pew") that constantly say/shout "Amen!", "Preach it, reverand!" etc to whenever the speaker makes a point, to affirm what he is saying. Or so I hear; us Roman Catholics are quite a bit more uptight... (or at least I am, anyway...)