Letters to the Editor
cestmoi123
Published Letters: 235 Editor's Choice: 8
-
@Gordon
[Read the article: A new democratic spirit]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Two things:
1. Clinton did better than Obama in municipalities that use electronic voting machines ( to count paper ballots). These municipalities also TEND TO BE LARGER. Occam's Razor says that the results show that "cities like Hillary."
2. If the Obama campaign thought the books had been cooked, why aren't they demanding a recount? The paper ballots are there, they could be hand counted, if anyone wanted to go to the trouble. The fact that the people who, in your theory, are being defrauded, aren't objecting to the "fraud," leads me to believe that they think #1 is the answer.
-
UN Compliance
[Read the article: The grave Iranian threat to world peace]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One could certainly make an argument that, since the UN has officially "demand[ed]" (Sec Council Res. 1696) that Iran stop enriching uranium, any threats that the US will take military action to stop it _are_, in fact, in line with the "purposes" of the United Nations, and hence not a violation of international law in any way, shape, or form.
To have that argument, however, you'd actually have to have international law that was enforceable by anything other than superior force - in other words, a military power greater than the US. Without that, the only international law with any real validity is whatever the US says.
-
@Tristan
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The question you really should be asking is:
"What does it say about Baltimore that Indianapolis was considered a better option?"
-
Thrasher, the data just don't support your assertions
[Read the article: Another San Francisco tragedy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]According to the DOJ, the homocide offender rate per 100k population (i.e. the number of murders committed) for black males was 26.5 in 2005 vs. 3.5 for while males. Bottom line, black males were 7.5x more likely to commit murder than white males.
Even in absolute terms, black males committed more murders (10,285) than white males (8,350).
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/oracetab.htm
-
@Thrasher
[Read the article: Another San Francisco tragedy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well, since the original piece was about homocide, I was talking about homocide. If you want to talk about crimes of violence, as defined by the DOJ, 43% are committed by whites, 21% by blacks. Given that the US is 80% white and 13% black, this means that blacks commit violent crimes at a rate about 3x that of whites.
-
Thrasher
[Read the article: Another San Francisco tragedy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]OK, if you want to say aggregates are what matters (and not proportions), then you go right ahead.
On aggregate, relatively few people are killed by men in bloodsoaked Klan robes running down the street waving axes. So, if you see one of those, I'm sure you won't feel a bit threatened.
As for ignoring my posts, I know how hard it must be when actual data conflicts with what you wish were true (just ask the Bush administration), so I'm not offended if you block me out.
-
Glenn, a legal question for you
[Read the article: Lawbreaking telecoms still conniving to obtain immunity from Congress]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm really not versed in this, so I've got a general legal question.
If a public official, in his official capacity, directs you to do something that, under other circumstances, is against the law, does that exempt you from liability for it?
For example, if a cop tells me "don't go here, the street's blocked off - instead, go the wrong way down that one way street," can I then be ticketed for driving the wrong way down a one way street? Further, if I hit a car coming the right way down the one way street, is my liability in the accident different than it would be if I had driven down that street without the cop's direction?
-
Why even discuss this "poll"?
[Read the article: What do evangelicals want?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Similar polls said that 80% of viewers thought that Ron Paul was winning televised debates. His best performance thus far has been 14%. Kinda big delta there, huh?
These online polls are notably less useful than a random number generator - at least the random number generator doesn't have systemic bias.
-
Can't respond is correct in the sense he means
[Read the article: Jay Rockefeller's unintentionally revealing comments]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When Rockefeller says that the telecoms can't respond, I think he means in a public forum. AT&T can't write Glenn a letter saying "we did XYZ, because ABC federal official told us to." So, in public, they genuinely can't defend themselves.
-
For all the Edwards fans
[Read the article: When principles aren't enough]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If you actually think he's got a snowball's chance in hell of winning:
1. Get an Intrade account.
2. Buy Edwards Dem nomination futures (right now about 5-6 cents, implying 20:1 odds)
3. Get a 20x return on your money
4. Give the profits to his general election campaign (or directly to the poor)
Up for it? I didn't think so.
-
@damnthatxanadu
[Read the article: Civil rights activists join fight over Michigan, Florida delegates]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Those 900k people are people that the Democratic party has chosen to disregard, as is its right. The party could also choose to disregard the votes of Texans. For that matter, as a private organization, it could probably also choose to only allow whites, or women, or Mormons, to have a say in selecting its candidate. Not sure whether it could convince states to expend resources to assist its primaries, but it could do so.
-
Contradiction.
[Read the article: Republicans have become the credibility-free party]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"It simply doesn't matter how well things are going in Iraq: the vast (and still increasing) preponderance of Americans have concluded that the war was a stupid, wasteful thing to do and they will not change their minds, no matter how much happy news springs forth."
Glenn, this makes no sense. If these people were originally in support of the war, and then turned against it when bad news started coming out, what's to say that good news couldn't bring them back in favor of it? The question is "was it worth it," which requires a cost/benefit analysis. If the (perceived) costs decline, or the (perceived) benefits increase, then those poll numbers could shift too. Not saying either will take place, but to assert that people "will not change their minds" no matter what happens flies in the face of basic logic.
-
@walter_map
[Read the article: Republicans have become the credibility-free party]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Possible benefits (again, preceived by the public):
1. Removal of Saddam Hussein/liberation of Iraq/establishment of a new democracy
2. Intimidation of Iran
3. Increased US clout in the Middle East
4. Removal of a nuclear threat
etc etc