Letters to the Editor
blunderdog
Published Letters: 509 Editor's Choice: 10
-
So What If...
[Read the article: Jonah Goldberg and Glenn Reynolds warn of "social unraveling" if Obama loses]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Stepping back for a moment to consider the possibility that Goldberg/Reynolds have a valid concern about "social unravelling" in case of an Obama-nation.
Let's see...would the racists actually dare to pick up their rifles when/if Obama wins the general election?
It seems pretty unlikely to me, but there's not much data to evaluate.
But even if it's TRUE: perhaps they're just agreeing with the Obama campaign message that he'll bring real and meaningful CHANGE. Everyone knows change can be painful.
I would enjoy a role-call of all the anti-American bastards who would use the election of a black man President as an excuse for violence. It would make it easy to find enough criminals to repopulate our prison system after freeing the non-violent offenders.
(I found Glenn's recent comment about all the detritus in this comment thread quite amusing. Don't think I'm not onto him, though--GG is actually a Templar/Illuminatus who is responsible for absolutely EVERY political event of the past 7 years. Do not even attempt to follow his strategy, though, as it's all way beyond any mere mortal's comprehension.)
-
Would anyone actually want to BAN this sort of thing?
[Read the article: Womb for rent]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It seems like another aspect of reproductive rights and freedoms to me.
Perhaps it's distasteful to some readers. Abortions are distasteful to some readers too.
But should anyone actually devote resources to trying to prevent such behavior?
I'm all for spreading the wealth from the US to more impoverished nations, and carrying babies isn't a job I ever have to worry about losing to offshore labor. Heh.
-
Sounds like fun to me
[Read the article: A salve for women's sex drive]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm currently a single guy, and I personally enjoy having a libido.
If there are women who would like to have a stronger one, and this salve can help them, I really can't find any way to make the creation of the stuff a "bad thing."
I don't think there's much risk of ANYTHING becoming "medicalized" without the willing participation of the patients.
-
Simple Solution
[Read the article: Mike Huckabee wants to abolish the IRS]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Huckabee will just appoint Chuck Norris to lead the United States Fair Tax Federal Revenue Administration and State Tax Authority Reconciliation Service.
Piece of cake.
-
Drivel
[Read the article: Stay classy, John Edwards ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What a crappy post. Ms. Traister read an awful lot into Edwards' comment there, which is just fine if she wanted to post a personal blog entry about it, but what I just read doesn't even come near the (admittedly low) standards of journalism that I expect from Broadsheet.
Does Broadsheet have editors? Or is it just type-and-click?
As for the "issue"--honestly, I tend to agree with the notion that someone who has strong emotional reactions to a question from the media MAY NOT be the best-suited person to become POTUS.
This isn't sexist, at least in my case. I have grave concerns (far more severe than any I have about Clinton) about McCain in this regard. Despite the fact that I hate McCain the least amongst the Republican candidates, I just can't tolerate the idea of that guy being CinC of the US military.
That's a real point to consider.
On the odd historical footnote, crying in a public speech seemed to help Nixon out a LOT. Maybe Clinton shouldn't worry about showing her feelings as much as she seems to.
-
Awesome!
[Read the article: Why I'm still not for Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Actually about in the issues, rather than the polish.
Yes, despite the blond maleness, John Edwards represents a better "Feminist" candidate than Hillary Clinton. Why? Because the predominant "feminist" problems today are class-based, rather than gender-based.
Pity so many have (thus far) failed to recognize (or admit, or acknowledge, or entertain) this point.
Simply: A society in which the "family" earning $50,000 a year can reasonably expect to pay for survival and education is a FAR more "feminist" society than the one we inhabit today. This is a basic element which *must* be addressed before any issues which affect blacks or women can be properly addressed.
We can bicker forever about who should be earning big bucks for their work today, and there are excellent points to be made (on several sides). But most simply and essentially, WOMEN in the USA suffer more than the "other half" of the population more because of their wealth. More so than for any other single reason. So do Blacks. As has been demonstrated sufficiently, rich women and rich Blacks tend to do JUST FINE when presented with the most onerous challenges our culture might inflict.
What would happen to Paris Hilton or Nicole Richie if one of them just happened to grab a cop's gun in the midst of some mindless scuffle? Even OJ?
Why is that?
Yeah, we KNOW that women don't make as much. Whatever is causing that effect is not something that we, as a culture, can effectively address without ALSO addressing some racist and homophobic tendencies.
Once we get "class" right, all the other bigotries will reveal themselves (for quantification) pretty darn quick. Let's get that all worked out with this chance, then follow up with other points.
(I make this case from the perspective of "our nation's history.")
-
Also, WOW!
[Read the article: Why I'm still not for Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"What would you say if Huckabee, for example (declassee, I know, but this -is- a thought experiment), made THE HANDMAID'S TALE a reality with his talk about gracious submission?"
Are the pregnant (or wannabe pregnant) women prepared to lay their lives on the line for those same unborn kids?
Tough question. I'd shoot someone if he attempted to "imprison" a woman I loved in her pregnancy. That'd apply for any woman I loved, regardless of the paternity of the unborn child.
Is that what it's gonna come to?
Wow.
(I had a drink before reading all this.)