Letters to the Editor
Fraud Guy
Published Letters: 337
-
Priorities
[Read the article: The Bill Moyers documentary on our failed and barren press]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Appropriately for this thread on MSM failure to present facts and analysis instead of statements and gossip, I am glad to see that our intelligence agencies are focusing on their marketing strategy. Now that this is a known known we can treat intelligence estimates with the amount of worth that they are due.
This reminds me too much of corporate life, where the facts aren't important but the presentation is everything. That's it, Bush is the first corporate president. Stereotype a manager and then look at Bush, and imagine pointy hair.
-
Don't want to spoil the party
[Read the article: The Dan Gerstein sham]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Just been reading today, as I was not blog reading when all the hullaballoo started happening. I was also split screen with the thread/Moyers, and was quietly impressed.
On the other hand, when I turned on cable earlier, the channel was on CNN, and I was treated to Glenn Beck breathlessly asking Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, as well as Joel C. Rosenberg (author of "The Epicenter"). They kept going back and forth on how the signs are occurring, that the end of the world is near, with the biblical signs coming from the authors, and Glenn (Beck) talking about how some scientists he read were talking about the same thing--leading to the inevitable conclusion (unspoken) that both science and religion were leading us to the end of times. Prime time,
It was like seeing a fatal car accident while waiting at a red light--you can't help but watch, even though you can't wait to get out of there because you don't want to watch them take the bodies away.
We still have a long way ago.
-
So
[Read the article: War as reality rather than cartoon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When do we get to be a true democracy, where people can freely speak out against our leaders, even at their support rallies, without being shouted at for being traitors?
Excellent post, Glenn.
-
Shouting
[Read the article: War as reality rather than cartoon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Kovie,
I apologize for my misstatement. What I meant to say (I seem to have not reached my morning minimum of caffeine) is that one should be able to speak out against our current leader at his rallies, without being pre-screened in deference to his sensibilities. If the other attendees wanted to shout me (or anyone) down, that is their peroragative, but dissenters should be allowed in the first place.
-
Misquote
[Read the article: The right's explicit and candid rejection of "the rule of law"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]naballz:
"So if one of the branches of government willfully acts against our national interests, the normal constitutional processes can't work as intended."
Exactly, so what is the Congress to do if the Decider won't follow the Constitution, which is the foundation of our country? Just lie down and take it. (Oh, wait, that was the previous 4 years.)
As to working together, IIRC, after the Dems took control of Congress, the Decider invited Congressional leaders to the White House to talk about national strategy. But only Reps got invited. Who spit in who's face?
The danger to this country is not currently from the Dems, or the terrorists, or the Congress; it comes from one, small, pathetic man and his enablers, whether in government or among the people. It comes from a party system that enshrines loyalty to party above that to country, and from an ideology that promises safety at the price of liberty. There is no freedom in safety, only stasis, and decline.
-
Quibbles
[Read the article: The right's explicit and candid rejection of "the rule of law"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]After two lost posts, in short:
All three branches of government interpret the Constitution.
The history of expanding the Executive goes back to at least Jefferson, and the most infamous rejection of the rule of law goes to Jackson, so Bush has the Democrats to thank for his examples.
But the Executive is the linchpin, as they have to execute the laws passed and approved by the other two branches. The President expresses his (so far) influence through appointments and vetoes. If the President ignores the other two branches (due to willfulness, expediency, or partisanship), then they need to be removed.
The unfettered executive who can step outside the law and then return to it without compulsion is the exception, not the rule (re: Cincinnatus). And if you wish to go back to the Roman example, how often during the Republic did they use Dictators; and how often, even in the throes of imminent doom, did they stick to their usual executive powers and survive (until the executive and special interests perverted the system to ensconce themselves in power permanently)?
-
Wrong angle on hair
[Read the article: The Politico: Exhibit A for our broken political press]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The regurgitation zone keeps harping after the hair when they miss another angle that could support corporate talking points:
This stylist is a highly paid professional who gets paid a good wage for what they do. For people who are concerned about the drain of manufacturing jobs overseas, this stylist is a shining example of what service industry workers can earn if they just apply themselves. McDonald's and Wal-Mart greeters are not the service industry--$200 a cut hair stylists are.
-
Rereading
[Read the article: The Politico: Exhibit A for our broken political press]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]jayackroyd:
I reread Allen's closing statement like this:
"But the truth is that the war on terror is designed to outlast a change in the Oval Office — or in vocabulary."
Just two letters, but makes a lot more sense, then.