Letters to the Editor
Renegade Iconoclast
Published Letters: 649 Editor's Choice: 11
-
With all due respect, tom payne
[Read the article: Who is the most "electable" Democrat?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I like Edwards too, quite a bit, so I've got nothing to quibble about on that score. However, this isn't the most important election in a generation. That happened in 2000. If Al Gore had been president, it's quite possible the 9/11 attacks would have been prevented. He would have paid attention to the memos. It was, after all, his administration that tried to warn the Bush administration about how important/dangerous Osama was. They were told to go play with their marbles, and that "the adults are in charge now."
Indeed.
-
All they want is to be free to hang their dissidents in peace
[Read the article: Bringing Iran in from the cold]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Part of being a sovereign nation means that you can round up folks who criticize the government, accuse them of drug trafficking, and hang them. Why should we feel threatened by that? It's not personal, any more than their expressed desire to eliminate Israel, it's just business. There's nothing "mad," or "irrational," or "evil" about executing homosexuals, denying the holocaust, supporting terrorists, suppressing the freedom of press, association, assembly, and speech. Nah, boys will be boys, can't we all just get along?
[/snark]
Okay, I don't want a war with Iran any more than the next guy does. Not because I don't think it's a great idea on general principle, but because I don't think we can win (without a draft, anyhow). And, Kamiya, people make comparisons to Neville because they're apt. Any reasonable person can see that the Iranian regime actually IS one of the most evil currently in existence.
For what it's worth, I don't think we should have normalized relations with China either. Not only are we complicit in their crimes, we're a willing and enthusiastic participant. Hell, we're a partner!
The amount of water carrying Salon does for brutal, authoritarian regimes, at the expense of our interests, and those of our allies (including Israel), is simply stupefying. It's the reason I canceled my subscription.
-
Whoa, slow down Siberio!
[Read the article: Bringing Iran in from the cold]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sean Siberio writes:
The thing is our military, and in fact no military, is set up to do the things you claim we can solve through military force, namely neutralize not only the hostility of a particular government, but somehow overnight rearrange and redistribute economic and political power in such a way that everything does not descend into chaos and civil war.
Where the hell did I claim that? You've got the wrong guy! Maybe if we put a million pairs of boots on the ground and stuck around for about a century, give or take one or two.
My point is this -- just because we can't beat their government into submission doesn't mean we should give them a seat at the table. They're evil. I'll go ahead and directly contradict Kamiya and say they're a mad state bent on Israel's destruction. Kamiya's argument is really quite remarkable. Essentially, he is saying the regime is lying about its stated desires, and therefore we should trust them not to act on those desires. Because they're rational, self-interested liars.
Wow, goodthink much? How about, they're evil so we don't deal with them? What's next, "free trade?"
-
Ha ha DrDetekto
[Read the article: Dogma days ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]He writes:
Check those knee-jerk right-wing blogs and you will find authors saying many things not liked by the dittoheads.
(Say) Ann Coulter will be found writing that George W. Bush is a sellout, or that Mitt Romney is a fake, or that Fox News / Bill O'Reilly are hypocrites.
What you will NOT find is a dreary pile of poisonous ad hominems, demanding shrilly that we not listen to the author, every time said author writes something the readers don't like.
First of all, Ann Coulter's administrators delete posts and ban members who don't drink the kool-aid. They also make it so that the forum stops working as well for you if they don't like what you say. Here on Salon anyone is allowed to post what they want (within very generous limits).
Secondly, Salon isn't a "blog," like Ann's site is, as much as you rightwingnuts would like to tag it as such. It's intended to be a political magazine. That's sort of why we tend to reject Camille treating it as her blog.
Thirdly, most of the attacks on Paglia are on substance, they're not ad-hominem. Perhaps you should look up ad-hominem in the dictionary. Literally, it means "to man," as opposed to, "to argument". It's not an ad-hominem attack to point out that Paglia's ad-hominem attack on Al Gore was substance free meaningless drivel. She doesn't tell us why global warming is a myth, what scientific sources she derives that opinion from, what specifically she takes issue with in Gore's message or his movie. She merely asserts that he's "chief propogandist," and that the overwhelming majority of scientists who agree global warming is a problem that we're causing are "hysterical".
-
Ya, sure
[Read the article: Dogma days ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And that overconfidence most assuredly does not lead to a toning of our intellectual muscles.
Neither does one tone their "intellectual muscles," by attacking one line of a substantive response and ignoring the rest. I think there's a technical term for that... what is it again? Oh yeah, it's called "trolling."
Before you accuse me of the same thing, note that I said "substantive response." Yours was the very opposite.
We know right wingers here when we see 'em. You all try to hide, but as soon as you say "Democrat party," or "this blog," you've pretty much tipped your hand. It's as though you want to be detected, like a serial killer.