Letters to the Editor
blunderdog
Published Letters: 526 Editor's Choice: 10
-
First Iraq Vote NOT a Vote "in favor of war"
[Read the article: Why I'm still not for Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I know this fact gets lost a lot, but let's remember, 'cause it's actually really important.
The first vote which authorized the President to "use military force against Iraq" was really and truly not "a vote in favor of going to war in Iraq."
When the vote occurred, there were still plenty of people willing to give the Bush II administration the benefit of the doubt when it came to assertation of power. (This also helps explain the Patriot Act I.)
In other words--it's true that Edwards/Clinton/Kerry/whoever else voted to authorize military force against Iraq, but to hold that specific vote as a CATEGORICAL error of judgement against anyone is overreaching.
People often concede all foreign policy control to the President, based on the wording of the Constitution and one reading of the historic record. For sure, the President has a better justification for control over foreign policy than any other branch of the government.
The vote authorizing force was predicated on that view.
What's different today is that everyone should have learned better over the past 5 years.
HRC voted to label the IRG a "terr'ist" organization just a few months ago! She KNOWS she can't trust the Dubya administration to EVER do the right thing, and then she went and gave them a perfect excuse to jump into another unwinnable and pointless war!
-
re: FBI phone bill
[Read the article: Chris Matthews is right ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Maybe this is the first stage of the corporates declaring all-out war on requests from the gummit.
The conspiro-paranoiac threat underlying is: if you don't give us amnesty for warrantless wiretapping, we'll mess up your phones. And there are lots of other companies that the government does business with that can also mess with you.
-
Pay Taxes
[Read the article: What will YOU do with your fiscal stimulus check?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How nice. Just in time for the IRS.
-
I'd like to change my answer...
[Read the article: Salon readers refuse to go on spending spree]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'd originally planned to use my stimulus to pay taxes.
After having read a few other articles tonight, I think I'll buy a year's worth of good pet health insurance and let the taxman go hang.
-
Tangential Thought on the Constitution
[Read the article: Amnesty Day for Bush and lawbreaking telecoms]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've only read to page 26 of comments so far, so if someone has thought of this, h/t.
Something seems to have happened to the Constitution that is not unlike what has happened to many religious texts. A small group of "citizens" have split from the majority -- those who believe the Constitution is a generally straightforward document capable of being read and understood by the people.
In order for the President to "enforce" the Constitution, he has no choice but to appear to violate it in the eyes of the mainstream...according to the tiny group of radical attorneys, lobbyists, and politicians currently in power.
While claiming to revere the Constitution, almost like a sacred text, the administration "interprets" it to dictate policy in direct contradiction to the actual spirit of the text.
Isn't this just the sort of thing that gradually becomes a cultural split? Like Sunni/Shi'ite or Catholic/Protestant or ...
-
Oh, Well
[Read the article: Election results: Who's ahead in the delegate race?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Although I'm perfectly content to wait out all the intrigues of the Dem nom process, I question the wisdom of a long period of bitter infighting right before beginning the campaign for the general election.
-
We're Dumber, Sure, but the Innernetz is teh bomb
[Read the article: America closes the book on intelligence]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A subject always near and dear to my heart. Are we getting dumber? Is our modern culture of ubiquity of gee-whiz advertising at every turn doing "harm" to our ability to chart the course of our species' destiny?
I sure think so. Best not to dwell upon it, though. Better to cultivate the signs of intellectual engagement that one occasionally sees.
Perhaps this has been remarked on already. I see the big threat coming NOT from the Internet or IM'ing, but rather from the constant barrage of _unchosen_ media input.
I think what is so harmful about TV (for example) is that there are so many situations in which individuals cannot make a CHOICE about what they are being subjected to. Sitting in a library, no book jumps out at a reader and distracts him from what HE is taking an active interest in.
TV and radio are constant sources of noise that deliberately SEEK to capture our attention, regardless of our personal desires.
The Internet has more in common with the library than television. Internet users are looking for the content that interests them. Thank your lucky stars they are able to take a personal interest in ANYTHING, given the constant assault on the incredibly limited resource of their attention.
-
@ drinkwater
[Read the article: The "father of modern conservatism," dead at 82]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I thought this was very interesting, because I so agreed with it, but wondered if it was missing something...
"Most Americans, wealthy or not, LOVE a good, old-fashioned, blue-blooded elitest. Someone who knows which fork to use, drinks the right kind of liquor and speaks the Queen's English. Having Buckley in America was kind of like keeping a member of royalty as a house pet. He didn't resemble us at all, but that only made him more attractive."
While I agree that most Americans love someone who speaks the Queen's English, it always struck me that there is a very strong antipathy towards the sincere belief that such "trappings" are actually worthy of reverence.
In other words, Buckley would have been pitch-perfect for "most Americans" if ONLY he'd demonstrated a sense of humility in public. I suspect that the person who garners the most affection in the American collective unconscious is the person you described above who is perfectly willing to laugh at his own formality afterwards.
I'll miss Bill (as the best of whatever he was), but I tend to remember the threats of violence against his intellectual opponents (and usually superiors) with bile in my throat. He issued the veiled threat to knock Chomsky's teeth in BEFORE the debate.
-
I Mean...
[Read the article: The "father of modern conservatism," dead at 82]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...of ALL the people on Earth to threaten on TV!
Noam Chomsky! Before he even had a chance to piss anyone off!
-
Style Points
[Read the article: Flag pins are for losers -- literally]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think more people are waking up to the fact that the tiny piece of ostentation is not flattering to most complexions.