Letters to the Editor
blunderdog
Published Letters: 509 Editor's Choice: 10
-
@ WT (side note)
[Read the article: Joe Klein: Both factually false and stuck in the 1980s]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Economist has its own vested interest in the war against the wogs. They spend most of their time and effort admiring the burden that they as white men are carrying for the rest of us, and being mildly irritated that we aren't more grateful to them for shouldering it.
They only sound more reasonable than Time because they pander to a different class. The British accent might also have something to do with it, don't you think?
It's more than that, though--the perspective in The Economist IS more reasonable because it's pandering to a different class. There's nothing "unreasonable" about saying, "Let's go to war to pillage wealth!" It may be immoral, but it's reasonable, and even RATIONAL. Saying, "Let's go to war to spread democracy!" is unreasonable, IRRATIONAL, and incredibly prevalent.
The rich have a legitimate desire to know what's going on in the world, and the perspective in The Economist is refreshingly honest about that. The writers there never for a moment try to hide their contempt for the impoverished, unlike stuff from American pundits. It's a far better news source than ANYTHING available from a US publisher.
-
Any Lawyers Handy?
[Read the article: Halftime harassment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I find this a really interesting case.
What is it that folks would like to see DONE, exactly?
What is the "crime" in people yelling stupid tit-taunts at people walking by? Sexual harrassment? What kind of charge is that? Does it warrant arrest, or is it a ticket?
For sure the local authorities (ie, stadium rent-a-cops) can eject people from the game for any reason. Is that what they should do? Just march a few crowds of obnoxious drunks out of the stadium. That might actually WORK, but it's hard to imagine a for-profit institution trying to sell tickets would want to drum up that kind of attention.
Do folks think that breaking up this crowd is something that the city should send the cops to do? The National Guard?
These are sincere questions, by the way. I'm very curious how anyone would want to prevent this kind of behavior without setting a precedent for the violent repression of ANY form of public gathering of people with dirty mouths.
I'm especially curious if there are lawyers here who actually know what the laws about taunting women on the street say.
-
We Bomb 'em Sometimes, too
[Read the article: "They are done to destroy women"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One of the things that depresses me so much about the United States is that our government runs to the aid of places like Kuwait (which isn't even a democracy) or goes to war in Iraq because they have oil, but when it comes to mass genocide and anarchy in African countries (Rwanda, Sudan, Somalia, Congo) we stand by as a country and do nothing other than offer platitudes, vacant threats, and ask for public donations.
--anonymous
If we'd adapt foreign policy to ACTUALLY attempt to "spread democracy" and promote human rights world-wide, we could probably accomplish a great deal, improving both the lives of the other lands we'd choose to help as well as the lives of Americans involved in the effort.
There's just no interest in either democracy or human rights amongst the corporate overlords and their lackeys, our officials.
I suppose the cynically-minded would suggest there's not much interest amongst the majority of the American public, either.
-
"Our Allies"
[Read the article: Saudi court stands by sentence of rape victim ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Pathetic and despicable.
Who benefits from our close relationship with the Saudis? Is it just Big Oil men, or are there any decent people?
Do business with the Devil long enough and bystanders stop being able to tell you apart. Pretty sure we've surpassed that point by now.
-
Waaaahhhh! Broadsheet is anti-semitic!
[Read the article: Happy Thanksgiving from Broadsheet]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Kidding, kidding. Though I think the irony was a bit light in the piece.
I love the suggestion is to tip well, rather than do anything to change the station of the slaves. Everybody knows Jews don't tip worth a damn.
(I hope I didn't miss the point of the post.)
-
This Would Be Better
[Read the article: Yes, and George W. Bush never looks at polls, either]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If you had a real "gotcha" moment.
Like, he had made that (obviously untrue) claim and issued the statement about mudslinging at the same speech.
It's a bit of a stretch when you have to concede that you don't know the timeline involved on both statements and/or who exactly made each of them.
But, I think most folks would agree that his claim to pay so little attention to Hillary/Obama sniping is laughable.
(I'd still rather hitch the Dem wagon to Edwards than either Obama or Hillary.)
-
@Dale
[Read the article: Dodd, Huckabee want answers on McClellan charges]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks for the link.
I wonder if someone pointed a gun at McClellan (or something) and the book is still being edited.
-
Self-correcting Problems
[Read the article: One woman, one daughter]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As interesting as the subject of population growth is, I can't take any notion of forecasting about the supportable population on Earth seriously.
Technological development has dwarfed development in virtually every other human endeavor, and it has made "magic" possible relative to the prevailing human imagination--in the last 30 years.
Somehow, I expect the global population's propensity to attempt to exterminate itself will rectify overcrowding problems well before we surpass the potential wealth of the planet.
Plus, literally starving people don't reproduce effectively.
-
@ Silenced
[Read the article: When is a military dictator a freedom fighter?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If the idea of "encouraging democracy" is to try to make other countries into gridlocked two-party republics, I'm opposed.
That said, I could vote either way, because (to paraphrase a previous poster) I don't know anything about what they want to do about life for the general public in Pakistan.
I lean anti-authoritarian, so I'd probably pick Bhutto. But to Musharraf's credit, he's never nuked anyone.
-
Thanks, Deering
[Read the article: Halftime harassment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I kinda like the "courtroom in the stadium" idea.
-
Canuckistan Bob?
[Read the article: Happy Thanksgiving from Broadsheet]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]No need to talk about me behind my back. I'm actually here for conversation, believe it or not, and I'd very much appreciate hearing your responses to whatever I've posted that disagrees with you somehow.
I don't attack folks here, and I don't post just to rattle cages.
If you're committed to ignoring me, that's all great, but then why sneer about it to other?