Letters to the Editor
Obi wan liberali
Published Letters: 36 Editor's Choice: 1
-
A most bizarre e-mail
[Read the article: Follow-up on the Col. Steven Boylan e-mail exchange]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've never seen a military official make your point for you as well as Col. Boylan did. The condescending tone and personal attacks contained in the e-mail are both fascinating and disturbing. Clearly Col. Boylan sent the original e-mail and his attempts at denying he sent that e-mail looks foolish and desperate. What has happened to our military?
-
Now it's about credibility
[Read the article: The case of the angry colonel]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Col. Boylan's actions call into question his credibility. It doesn't take alot of insight to realize that Boylan wrote the e-mail to Glenn Greenwald. His trying to cover his tracks has all the hallmarks of a man with serious ethical and professional limitations. Can the American public trust the words of Col. Boylan when he answers questions on the state of affairs in Iraq? Unless he manages to clear his name of the charges or atleast comes clean and owns up to what he did, I would have to say no.
-
In the spirit of JFK
[Read the article: Romney to speak about his Mormon faith]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Ich bin ein Mormon" or should it be "Ich bin ein Christian"? Mormonism as a religion has some pretty kooky beliefs and some reprehensible teachings regarding the evolutions of races and God's role in skin pigmentation. Even so, it really isn't much more kooky than believing in a God-man borne to a virgin who by dying on the cross like thousands of other individuals under Roman rule somehow allows remission of sins upon belief in the said crucifixion.
As a Utahn, I've voted for tons of Mormons. Usually my choice is between a Mormon Democrat and a Mormon Republican. Many have served the public well, others haven't. It isn't Mitt's religion that bothers me as much as the ideas he's espoused and the fact that his views seem to conform to whomever is his target audience.
-
A little perspective on Mormon Doctrine
[Read the article: Romney: "Freedom requires religion" ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Mormons teach that mankind come to earth for a purpose. That purpose is to be tested. Two plans in the pre-mortal existence were presented to the Mormon God. One was by Satan who would force everyone to obey God's commandments. The other one was presented by God's first first-born, Jesus who wanted to give mankind free-agency to decide whether to follow God and prosper, or reject God and be subject to eternal stagnation. God chose to give mankind the freedom to choose for themselves.
From Mitt's perspective, the freedoms that exist in the United States come from God, freedoms that were instituted to allow the restored true gospel of Jesus Christ to be restored in a country that values freedom of religion and tolerance for divergent beliefs.
Mitt truly believes in this way, and his statements should be viewed as much as possible from that direction. I agree that this perspective is somewhat frightening, but it is consistent what many founders of our country felt, that God had given men "certain inalienable rights" among them "liberty."
-
The Mormon Satan
[Read the article: Huckabee, Romney, Jesus and the devil]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I addressed this at my blog at http://frombehindthezioncurtain.blogspot.com/ in a post called "The Mormon Satan". As a former Mormon who has taught his share of Gospel Doctrine classes, for the LDS Church to call such an accusation a "smear" is very disingenuous. I wonder how many other current or former doctrines the LDS Church will deny in order to make Mitt look more mainstream?
Heck, it's no big deal to me. These theological debates seem like debating whether Santa resides on the North or South pole. Both Nicene Christianity and Mormonism make as much sense as a screen door in submarine, but for the Mormon Church, which has taught this doctrine for well over a century to call it a "smear" is quite telling.
-
When observing our Democratic Congress
[Read the article: Democrats show Beltway "strength," avoid being depicted as weak]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I keep thinking of a scene from the movie Aliens, "Game Over!, Game Over man!"
-
What we have are basically sports reporters
[Read the article: Illustrative New Hampshire snippets]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's all about who is perceived to be winning and whose offense is sputtering, who commits a personal foul on defense, or who you think has the momentum due to an ill-advised turnover. That is what our political dialogue has come down to.
-
Wow, Mussolini as his defining source on fascism
[Read the article: "We're all fascists now"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And then he goes on to say that Mussolini was inconsistent and applied terms differently and loosely. Golberg's brand of historical revisionism is deeply inconsisten with his use of labels. Under his definition of nazism, it would be hard for anyone to not fit under that category, atleast in some way. When a term because that general, it in reality becomes useless as a way of discerning differences.
That was an amazing and enlightening interview. Jeepers creepers.
-
This interview brings back memories
[Read the article: McCain spokesman John King of CNN]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Unfortunately, it is of a Simpson's episode, where Monty Burns, running for Governor goes to the Simpson house for dinner with the cameras rolling. Lisa is required to ask an extremely banal question of Monty Burns, something to the effect that "your campaign is gaining momentum and your popularity is soaring, why is that?". (sigh) How often a Simpson's episode has relevancy?
-
Good point on Kristol
[Read the article: Obama and the Kennedy legend]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Whenever Kristol says something I agree with, I know it's time to reconsider. It's called playing the odds.
-
Best of luck in the new job
[Read the article: A farewell note]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Have enjoyed your reports immensely. Wherever you go, give em hell.
-
I am no fan of Romney
[Read the article: McCain tees off on Romney]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But I have to admit that he had a legitimate claim against McCain misrepresenting his position. I actually fear Romney more than I do McCain, and frankly, Romney handily won the CNN debate. I hope no one was watching.
-
John King, Larry King, Tim Russert, fill in the blanks
[Read the article: John King with Mike McConnell: Rare journalistic honesty]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You should not be surprised when a major Bush official appears in an interview and is given praising, inconsequential questions from journalists who have not done their homework.
There is a reason why McConnell will appear on CNN with John King, and not with Glenn Greenwald. Bush officials are the water from the well journalists need to irrigate their crops. Tough probing questions from a journalist ensures that the Bush administration will shut the valve to that journalist. It is an unwritten, but very well understood relationship.
It is a win-win for the journalists and the Bush Administration. Journalists can go into interviews with minimal preparation and gain access to big names and appear like serious journalists. Bush Administration officials then get to effectively promote their propaganda goals and objectives. It is like a sick and mutual relationship between two dysfunctional spouses.