Letters to the Editor
blunderdog
Published Letters: 509 Editor's Choice: 10
-
I Love this Piece
[Read the article: American flag pins are for idiots]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Even though I'm not really any kind of Maher fan. I disagree with him vehemently at least 35% of the time.
I think the few folks who wear pins and took offense needn't take Bill's claim QUITE so literally.
My generation invented the microchip, developed the Internet, made a corrupt president resign, advanced the rights of black people and women, and yup, we were consumed with lust and self-importance -- just like your generation.
Seems to me like it was mostly WWII vets and their generation who were in political power when the rights of blacks were advanced so dramatically. They didn't do much for women, though--just Wade, and what kind of advance in rights is that?
The microchip may be something to take credit for, but not the Internet. No, that was Cold War grownups, not Boomers. Check it out--it was a military thing in the '50s! (What the following generations did was trick it out.)
The "Greatest Generation" is damn annoying, for sure. They really did sacrifice a great deal. Then they sent their kids to 'Nam, at least partly because they thought "the kids are spoiled." Lovely.
Every time I hear how great everyone was 'cause of WWII, I've taken to asking why those great folks waited so long. And how wonderful it is that WWII gets invoked every time we want to beat up some insignificant tyrant somewhere.
Of course, it's to be expected that each generation resents the one before it and is contemptuous of the one that follows.
DISCLAIMER: Being an X-er who was a child of pre-Boomers fills me with equal proportions of hate and disgust for both you groups of assholes. To form, my generation gets a lot of credit from all of you for deconstructionism, apathy, ingratitude, and sick video games.
PS: All with love.
-
No Hater Here
[Read the article: Is Hillary running away with the race?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't hate Hillary. I'm opposed to her nomination ONLY because I believe her to be unelectable in this country. (I'm not going to dwell on that here, though.)
What I don't understand about the Hillary campaign is why it seems that people who really don't AGREE with her on important issues are so gung-ho on her candidacy.
Didn't she just vote to declare the Iranian National Guard a "terrorist" organization? By what mental gymnastics does any rational person see this as a good vote? Or representing the "interests" of America or Americans?
What's going on in her mind about the telco amnesty bill? I get the impression she's opposed, kinda, but it's not really clear to me how she intends to vote on the issue. And that's a pretty damn important issue. Right?
As for the comment someone made about feeling "steamrolled" into the Hillary campaign--I certainly understand that feeling. Salon is a great example--she's received tons of gushing press right here on these pages. A few months back, I had been astonished to see an article about Edwards, but less surprised when I counted the headlines and saw the Hillary stories outnumbering the Edwards stories by more than five to one.
Could it be that the corporate enthusiasm for Hillary (as represented by the MEDIA enthusiasm) is indicative of her allegiances?
A building is burning down, here: it's the republic. We are given the choice between candidates who have actually made concrete and clear commitments to CHANGING things (take either Edwards or Obama here), and a candidate who appears to be a full-on corporatist. (Hillary should get no pass on that--the board of WalMart? Are you kidding me?) And the fact that she's a perfect example of the modern "Beltway insider" doesn't strengthen her appeal.
Who's burning down the republic? Our corporate overlords. Who's on their side? The Republican party, certainly. Of the choices amongst Democrats, is there anyone who stands out as "more" friendly to big business than the others?
I dunno. I'll vote for Hil when/if she wins the nomination, but I think it's a sad sorry shame that the best arguments in favor of her candidacy are that she's smart and an effective "campaigner."
We don't need a "campaigner" in the Oval Office. We need a leader whose interests are aligned with the population of the country. I just don't see Hillary as that person.
-
Great Post, Fleinn
[Read the article: Follow-up on the Col. Steven Boylan e-mail exchange]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I truly regret to say - that I do not see any sign of reason suddenly taking hold in any of this. Instead I see mistrust of authority, but lack of will or even ability to question it. --fleinn
Is it lack of will or ability to "question" authority, or to resist it?
I was struck by three front page headlines in NYC about the Yankees potential coming shakeup. I mention that big news to a few folks, they smirk sadly and hang their heads. I realize they're just like me, just working to pay the bills.
What a tremendous post. Thanks so much for that.