Letters to the Editor
Baldie McEagle
Published Letters: 992 Editor's Choice: 3
-
More quibbling
[Read the article: Reply to Dan Drezner]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hegemony: The predominant influence, as of a state, region, or group, over another or others
Hegemony need not always be imperialistic. But it can be, and it usually is. Synonyms might be sway, dominance, preeminance. Is there any real difference between hegemony and empire at the moment when the hegemon decides to openly go imperial?
-
@Michael Harold
[Read the article: Reply to Dan Drezner]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think what you're saying is that "charity begins at home." Is that right?
Of course, you are confusing charity with hypocrisy, but I understand.
-
You're right Glenn ...
[Read the article: How our seedy, corrupt Washington establishment operates]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In a political culture with even the most minimal amounts of integrity, this would be a major scandal. But in our political culture, it is simply a vivid exhibit illustrating how our political system works.
It's no surprise at all. If you're referring to the Roman Empire, that is.
This whole thing reminds me of nothing more than factionalism among the Imperial bureaucracy: infighting over client states with appeals to members of the Emperor's family, inner circle, and household officials, the goal being to capture the Emperor's ear. Who will be governor of the new province? His pliant but ineffective nephew, or the Romanized pretender?
Of course any empire has such factions, but it is the openness with which the factions conduct their business---Senate haggling in the marketplace, and horse-trading on the Senate floor---that indicates a depth of corruption, a loss of all democratic values, that makes it seem so very Roman. All we need now is clips of senatorial orgies on YouTube.
It's striking to think we have fallen so far in the 30 years since the Cold War imperial structure lost its reason to exist. It used to be there were at least theoretical consequences for fucking up. No longer.
-
A question for Mr Hewitt
[Read the article: Larry Craig? Hey, look! It's al-Qaida!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Does a record of decades of hypocrisy make a closeted homo unfit to serve in the Senate in a time of war?
-
Hey, whatever
[Read the article: Larry Craig's bathroom behavior and the right wing -- then and now]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I like to do my private diddling in public. Who doesn't?
-
So ...
[Read the article: The president's escalating war rhetoric on Iran]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I wonder when the attack will take place. Just before the 2008 elections? or just after? or never at all? Is it possible all this is intended to get a war frenzy peaking around November 7, 2008?
How ironic if, given all the comparisons commonly made to Rome, we first succeed, then fail where Trajan first succeeded, then failed. This is not a war the US can win.
How sad that none of these applauding military people can see that the only countries in the region we haven't labeled "troublemakers" are Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia? Will they ever figure out who their employers really are?
-
Both funny & sad, like a clown holding a dead puppy
[Read the article: The art of neoconservative innuendo]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So Ledeen thinks that asking permission from another country to honor their dead is an egregious act of war, perhaps even a violation of some Convention or other.
Now it all makes sense. In such a hyper-hyped world, it is indeed an act of martial bravery to put hands to keyboard and bang out a round of bloggery into the enemy. It is perfectly honorable to hide behind your chair when the enemy lobs questions back at you. Those things can mess you up real good.
-
@Karen
[Read the article: The art of neoconservative innuendo]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Brilliantly argued!
Now if there only were a court of metaphorical justice that would hear your argument and that had the power to rule congressional resolutions rhetorically invalid ...
-
@scooter
[Read the article: Giuliani's proposal for endless Middle East wars on behalf of Israel ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Perhaps you've forgotten that we went to war on the behalf of Kuwait?
I must have missed that one. Which Harry Turtledove novel was that in?
-
@Whispers
[Read the article: David Brooks and the deceitful tactics of the Beltway pundit]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Dick Cheney" is usually ironical when he posts. And he doesn't always use that name, but his choice of names is always ironic.
-
On Hillary
[Read the article: David Brooks and the deceitful tactics of the Beltway pundit]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Cynics might say lefties should vote for Hillary, because she's got the best shot at winning. (Never mind that she may also have the best shot of screwing up whatever chance is handed to her.)
Any thoughts on the question of whether the Dems might wake up if they see the most liberal, most antiwar candidate get nominated? (I'm assuming that's Obama, but I don't know.) What would finally cause them to break with their recent past, that they won't be able to explain away?
Kucinich as nominee? But they wouldn't let that happen.
Their pleasant dreams need to be shattered if they are ever to represent the people who vote for them.
-
Don't you understand
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]They want to impose their barbaric, unChristian, Islamic law, which knows nothing of forgiveness or mercy, on the West. To achieve this, they will send terrorists with dirty bombs to weaken our resolve, then invade and occupy the US and Europe with immigrants, so they can force us to accept Islam in about 500 years. Wake up people, it's not about today---it's about tomorrow.
Today, Iran lacks nuclear technology, was barely able to fend off Saddam, and is not even much of a threat to Israel. But can you say the same for tomorrow? (Check back to see tomorrow's message...)
(Repeat daily.)