Letters to the Editor
cestmoi123
Published Letters: 235 Editor's Choice: 8
-
@Lynx
[Read the article: McCain releases tax returns -- at least, some of them]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I do think it's hypocrisy - much akin to a politician raging against the breakdown of the American family and having an affair, or someone who attacks the evils of abortion and then sends his daughter off to get one.
If you think gov't should mandate X, then you should be willing to do X voluntarily.
-
One other note on service
[Read the article: Ask the pilot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's worth remembering that, in a number of Asian countries, flight attendant is a comparatively high status job for a woman, while it is clearly not in the US. Singapore Airlines gets to recruit FAs from a very different slice of society than United or American.
-
Again, the whole issue misses the point
[Read the article: Major revelation: U.S. media deceitfully disseminates government propaganda]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Do these "commentators" or "experts" generate viewers? If so, they're doing their jobs. Why we continue this delusion that the news is anything but another way to generate advertising revenues (whether those be ads seen on CNN or the AARP ad on the right of what I'm typing right now), I just don't know.
-
@DCLaw1
[Read the article: Major revelation: U.S. media deceitfully disseminates government propaganda]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The publicly held media companies are doing what they're supposed to be doing (in fact, what they're legally and morally obligated to do): maximizing profit for their shareholders, within the bounds of the law. If they're not doing that, they're failing in their mission.
Also, as to relative ratings, it's worth noting who's watching/listening/reading. A show with lower absolute ratings but a higher quality viewership (i.e. higher income) can be a much more worthwhile and valuable show than one with a larger, but lower value audience base.
-
@ahoyboy, re: public interest obligations
[Read the article: Major revelation: U.S. media deceitfully disseminates government propaganda]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What better way to meet those needs than providing what Americans actually WANT to see, as expressed by their actual preferences and viewing habits, rather than what some group thinks they SHOULD want to see?
If we go down the latter path, then there's no real barrier to gov't deciding that we need is more "moral uplift," with primetime timeslots dedicated to discussing the evils of, for example, "deviant homosexual conduct."
I have respect for the American people, enough to let THEM choose what THEY find beneficial, rather than deciding for them.
-
@libertyon
[Read the article: The haunting of the Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]8 years of Democratic rule, not 12. Repubs took back the White House in 1968. Just saying.
-
Yeah, those unreasonable Israelis
[Read the article: Bill Kristol, great man of sacrifice, on the duties of Passover]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Israel is just as much responsible as Palestine for violence and no peace between them."
And how exactly is this true?
By keeping lands captured in wars launched against it? OK, I guess it would have been better to just say "no harm, no foul, here's the Golan back, try not to shell us so much next time."
By launching raids into Gaza to go after groups launching missiles into Israel? OK, I guess it would have been better to just say "try not to hit the women and children with the missiles, huh?"
By refusing to negotiate with Hamas? That's kind of like telling someone he should go buy a car from a dealer whose initial bargaining position is "I kill you and take your money and your house."
-
@Christopher Michael Neill
[Read the article: Bill Kristol, great man of sacrifice, on the duties of Passover]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Did you also see how Hamas spokesmen were immediately after the meeting saying that a two-state solution would be only "transitional"? In other words, a "transition while we build up enough strength to destroy Israel, like our charter says we will"?
Or how it said that it would only support even a "transitional" two state solution if all Palestinians, including those _outside_ the territories, were to vote in favor of it?
Or the press conference Meshal gave shortly after meeting with Carter where he said "Hamas accepts the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital and with full and real sovereignty and full application of the right of the Palestinian refugees to return but Hamas will not recognize the state of Israel."
It's perfectly reasonable for Israel to demand that any negotiating party recognize its fundamental right to exist.
-
@ CO Jones
[Read the article: Bill Kristol, great man of sacrifice, on the duties of Passover]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why? Honestly, I'm not sure exactly how to respond to that. How do you negotiate with someone whose officially declared goal is to wipe you out? If they don't believe you should even exist, how can you possibly believe they'll negotiate in good faith?
That's sort of like trying to sell a car to someone who says, upfront, that he'd be fine just shooting you in the head and taking the car. Do you think that you'd feel comfortable that, when it comes time to pay, they will actually pay?
-
@ CO Jones
[Read the article: Bill Kristol, great man of sacrifice, on the duties of Passover]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I certainly recognize that Israel's founding is less than crystal clear, but that's true of pretty much every nation on earth, and it's not like the territory on which Israel sits has been without conflict before.
That being said, you really haven't addressed the issue.
Say, for the sake of argument, that you DID steal the car you're now trying to sell to someone who says "I plan to shoot you in the head and take the car." Why would you go any further? You'd say "I'm not having this conversation," and walk away.
The facts on the ground are in Israel's favor - it is the dominant military power in the region, and nobody has the muscle to drive the Jews into the sea, as much as they may want to. Given this, if Hamas actually wants to change the status quo, it needs to figure out what it needs to do to actually make Israel view negotiations as worthwhile. Recognizing Israel's right to exist, and not calling for the explusion of Jews, might be a good place to start. Hamas doesn't want this, though. The last thing it wants is to try to actually run a Palestinian state. If there were peace, then the Palestinian population might start to say "hey, the Israelis aren't occupying us anymore, and things are still awful - maybe it wasn't all the Jews' fault after all!"