Letters to the Editor
New Deal Democrat
Published Letters: 210 Editor's Choice: 43
-
It's the disconnect between reality and rhetoric
[Read the article: What "truly motivates" George W. Bush?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Without attempting the futile exercise of trying to divine the motives of George W. Bush, I would submit the reason so many people see him as evil is, simply, the gulf between what he says and what he does.
The Bush presidency is perhaps the most outwardly pious in American history, yet it is also one of the most corrupt and power-hungry. For those of us who had some sort of non-fundamentalist Christian upbringing, this is the most galling aspect of Bush. It's the salt in the wound produced by his mendacity, incompetence, cronyism, and - most glaringly from a religious perspective - his nonchalant indifference to the suffering of those less fortunate than himself.
Richard Nixon, while plenty dishonest and power-hungry, never claimed to be "born-again," and, despite his bewitching of Billy Graham, never indulged in the kind of over-the-top religious rhetoric we've been treated to from Bush since Day One.
There's nothing quite so awful as the astounding levels of hypocrisy we've seen in this administration. It's one thing to do bad things; it's another to do them while making claims to piety.
-
Homes are still very expensive relative to income
[Read the article: No one wants to buy a home. Whose fault is it?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Now that the irrational exuberance has been wrung out of the market by a combination of bad debt and (modestly) rising interest rates, everyone is realizing just how expensive housing is relative to average incomes.
It's a cliche of investing - but a true one - that investors alternate between greed and fear. Since the market correction has put a damper on greed, fear has kicked in - fear that we haven't hit market bottom yet.
At its most pronounced, this kind of thinking leads to deflation. Why should I pay $1 today for something that will cost 90 cents tomorrow? I think we're seeing a little of this in the housing market, but I don't believe it's all psychological. Housing really has gotten more expensive in many parts of the country.
-
Defeat the immigration bill
[Read the article: Hitting a wall on immigration]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Anyone who believes that creating a path to amnesty for 12 million illegals will somehow solve the immigration problem is a fool. It simply rewards illegal behavior, and will create an incentive for others to follow in their footsteps.
I realize the the great majority of illegals are simply trying to make a living. I don't begrudge them that, but their need to earn a living doesn't necessarily become my problem.
My question for Mr. Shapiro and others who support amnesty: please explain how the presence of an underground labor market does NOT undermine American wages and standards of living.
As for his criticism of a "Rube Goldberg" scheme for determining eligibility/desirability for legal status, I ask, what developed country does NOT have a system for controlling immigration in this way? Canada most certainly does, as does all of the EU.
This is myopic, naive liberalism at its worst. Under the pretense of caring about poor people, it plays into the hands of the ultra-rich and large corporations, who are no doubt salivating at the prospect of institutionalizing a non-citizen underclass (guest workers) that will be easily exploited with the blessing of the law.
-
@ The Professor
[Read the article: Hitting a wall on immigration]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Speaking of sharing... how much of your own paycheck are you willing to "share" to provide services to illegal immigrants? 10, 20, 30%? I'd just like to know since, for you, there seems to be no limit to the number of immigrants we should allow. All that comes with a price tag, which you conveniently don't discuss in your posts. Is it someone else's money you're spending? Please elaborate.
Moreover, why aren't you complaining about Canada, or the EU, or virtually every other developed country that enforces much tighter immigration controls than the U.S.?
I had friends who recently emigrated to New Zealand, and they had to endure quite a rigorous process that was based on education and age, among other criteria. These are two educated professionals and they barely made the cut. Someone who was older or less skilled wouldn't have had a chance. Doesn't that make the kiwis even more evil than we? Come to think of it, I like Canada a lot; what right do they have to keep me out?
Your arguments are naive and presumptuous in the extreme, as they don't argue so much for intelligent immigration policy as none at all. How would you administer a government that cedes control over its borders? I'd like to know.
-
Let's not feel too superior in the USA
[Read the article: "A Russian Diary"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm with the previous post by all politics is local.
Our major media in the U.S. are controlled by corporate conglomerates that have a vested interest in the status quo - or the status quo ante I should say. While this is not the same - or as thorough - as Putin's leverage in Russia, it's a well-established fact that circles of influence and power, even in free(er) societies like the U.S., intersect. Is there a better example than Fox News?
The right-wing echo chamber that Glenn Greenwald so ably dissects in his blog does everything it can to prevent inconvenient facts (or inconvenient interpretation of those facts) from reaching the American public. It's aided and abetted by these media conglomerates. Thus, the war in Iraq.
Moreover, our government has spent most of the last six years doing whatever it can to take away our civil liberties. We've already lost habeas corpus. The trends are not favorable. I can be neither complacent about prospects for freedom in the U.S., nor overly dismissive (simply because it's Russia) of what happened to Politkovskaya.