Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 2149 Editor's Choice: 7
-
Bullshit!!!!!! There...I said it.
[Read the article: National Review's new tough guy, Mark Hemingway]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]in the case of b, you have just reduced yourself to your opponent's level
When we become personally responsible for in excess of half a million needless deaths, THEN we will have reduced ourselves to our opponent's level. In the meantime the stakes are way too high to not use every tool at our disposal to pull our country back from the brink. If that means calling a warmonmger a pussy or posting a picture that calls into question a warmonger's credentials to call someone else a pussy....well imagine my fucking concern....
-
The fallacy fallacy
[Read the article: National Review's new tough guy, Mark Hemingway]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Accusations of hypocrisy are inadmissible in legal and scientific debate, and can be distractions from the business of politics
This is, of course, bunk. Humans are not random actors. Past performance is indeed an excellent indicator of future results. I was accused upthread of being closed minded because I dismissed something sourced to Newsmax for no other reason than the fact that it was sourced to Newsmax. This is a case where the source of the information is a good indicator of its reliabilty which in this case is nil.
Likewise accusations of hypocrisy are highly relevant because they speak to the character of the source.
-
He made a mistake and admitted it...
[Read the article: National Review's new tough guy, Mark Hemingway]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I found his willingness to admit error heartening.
I found his need to do so twice in three hours a little more troubling.
WT managed to describe the process with a rather clever analogy. Quite appropriately, I thought.....
-
1350
[Read the article: National Review's new tough guy, Mark Hemingway]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks for asking.
-
Just an indication of how totally backward things have become.
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And the task is to convince him to "accept," to "agree" to, to be "willing to consider" a symbolic reduction in the number of troops at some point in the far off future provided a whole series of subjective conditions are met (to be determined at his sole discretion)
This strikes me a good time to remind everyone that there is a reason Congress (specifically the House of representatives) was the body empowered to declare war and raise Armies. The founders of course had a vision of War as a temporary condition and thought that a standing army was a danger to freedom. The problem is of course that coming out of WWII and into the Cold war, it suddenly became fashionable to think a war as a permanent state (hence the phrase 'Cold War' in the first place.)
I don't know the best way to counter this thinking but it is clearly freshly laid asphalt on the road to tyranny.
-
The US is neither a dictatorship nor a failed state
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]No doubt because we are protected by a magical cloud of benevolence which can be invoked by chanting USA USA under one's breath. The same magical cloud of course makes every act of violence committed by every American on foreign soil an act of self defense because it is well known that America owns the world and is therefore incapable of tresspassing.
The same magical cloud of course is what renders the Constitution irrelevant because we all know that GWB answers to a higher authority. Just ask him, he'll be happy to explain.
-
@Jared & Scientician
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is my lot in life to frequently find myself in situation where I'm forced to say "You're both right" Compared to the benchmarks that were established when I was attending school, learning about the Constitution and being told why the USA was the best country in the world, we have descended to a degree that would have been difficult to beleive at the time (Even with J. Edgar Hoover and Watergate)
On the other hand, compared to early 2003, when the Dixie Chicks were being crucified for having the audacity to form an independent opinion on whether attacking Iraq was a good idea, we have indeed come a long way.
The greatest progress, I might add, is in the way the average person on the street thinks about these issues. Just because DC itself is slow to come around, doen't mean that good things aren't happening.
-
language evolves
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2006/08/on-troop-and-troops.html
Language is unfortunately an evolving phenomenon. When certain usages become common enough they cease to be errors - irregardless!
-
"The surge is working"
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The surge is working alright. It has ver conveniently changed the subject about what the future in Iraq holds and bought at least one more FU for our soldiers.
Recall that during the election campaign we were endlessly presented with the choice between "staying the course" and "cutting and running". Within minutes of "cutting and running" winning Congress, "stay the course" mmediately disappeared down the memory hole and "the Surge" was born.
I just can't beleive that our entire foreign policy apparatus is being run by a marketing department but there you have it.
-
@Chris Sinnard
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think your misreading the situation.
In one of the rare instances where shooter said something that's not wrong, he noted that a lot of the GWB strategy is to lead our enemies to assume the worst. There's no doubt in my mind that the "leak" was deliberate and designed to let the Iranians worry that there are indeed 5 missiles with their names on them now conveniently located in Louisiana.
-
Of course
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]by "GWB" I was referring to the whole administration and not the individual. But doesn't "accidentally" flying some nuclear warheads to a forward base followed by a "whistlblower" leaking the fact to the press have all the hallmarks of a Nixonian ratfuck with Iran as the target.
I had already encountered and posted this link in a different context. I think its appropriate. Especially considering that Cheney's whole MO is to resuscitate the Nixon legacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory