Letters to the Editor
Baldie McEagle
Published Letters: 992 Editor's Choice: 3
-
I guess some clarification may be needed
[Read the article: Ron Paul distortions and smears]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Speaking for myself, and no one else on this thread, I want to point out that I deliberately expressed my support for Paul strictly in terms of the severe limitations I see to whatever damage he might otherwise cause.
Limitations.
To.
Damage.
Again, this was a deliberate choice of rhetorical framework. I hope this calms the mouses and chum-hungry antipauliacs out there.
@RMP: Your questions are thoughtful and dead on. But just to be clear, I'm not the one to answer them specifically---I never heard of the guy before Jon Stewart noticed him. Clearly half of his supporters hover on the fringe.
But my blanket answer is simply that I doubt the Union is in much danger from Paul. Don't fear mere politics. Have faith in the Union you love. We are surviving the little chickenhawk emperor---we can survive 4 years of a president who isn't a chickenhawk. No president gets to decide the course of our country for generations to come, over just 4 years. Good medicine is rarely tasty.
-
Political ravines
[Read the article: Ron Paul distortions and smears]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There's no question that we don't know enough about Paul to elect him president. I'm not really worried about that, though.
(1) he won't be elected president
(2) before he is, he'll be raked over the coals.
As Glenn is pointing out, he'll be called worse things than "wingnut." At least, until he is anointed Glorious Leader by the GOP. If that happens, then I'll start to worry, unless I'm having too much fun watching the anointers twist themselves into knots over the anointing.
And only if he is anointed can he survive the vicious swiftboatings that will come. Only the anointed can get to be president with drunk driving and AWOL records. If you're worried about secrets, I'd worry about THOSE secrets: the kind that are deliberately hidden by the party machine to achieve the foreordained conclusion.
Our presidential races are far too somnolent and staged, like gladiatorial combats. Kabuki, someone said. And twice as boring. I'd look forward to the debates that prove Paul worse than Hillary. Or the reverse---I don't care which.
-
@Chris
[Read the article: Ron Paul distortions and smears]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Focus. William said:
"Property rights as the basis of environmental responsibility"
-
Also
[Read the article: Ron Paul distortions and smears]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The reason the Romans debased their coinage is that they didn't realize it would lead to inflation. While I share your suspicion of economic experts, I don't think this particular cause of devaluation is exactly susceptible to repetition.
-
Speciosity
[Read the article: A casualty of female hunters?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's true that we call the Neandertals Homo neanderthalis.
But that's just what we call them. My bet is that in 100 years people will laugh at the idea that there ever was such a species.
Some think they were H. habilis. But it doesn't really matter---they were as human as our ancestors were, and we have no evidence aside from arrogance that we were/are any smarter.
-
Beltway journalism again
[Read the article: The Giuliani moderation fallacy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is the very model of the modern major-journalist. To wit, the simpleminded calculation that a chickenhawk with a soft spot for gay rights and abortion is a moderate. I think that is exactly the calculation that was performed. I've seen it done before. Just as Glenn said.
Lazy and self-interested journalism. Calling Giuliani moderate rather than cynical and stupid lets them continue to pretend they are "serious." Only serious journalists may discuss the leading candidates. Ergo, Giuliani is a moderate!
"Giuliani may be the answer to America's quest for the next president, a man who can unite a divided country." Oh, you want me to write a profile of Giuliani in the Sunday supplement? Sure, I'm your man!
(Glad I didn't call him a near-criminal incompetent head case. They don't run those stories in the Sunday Washington Post.)
-
@kwiatal
[Read the article: The Giuliani moderation fallacy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Exactly.
-
Update IV
[Read the article: WSJ Op-Ed page decries hatred of the president]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Bork's and Berkowitz's actions are perfectly consistent with their views. As a proponent of "tort reform," they want to make it harder for people to sue. The basis of their argument is that some people do not know when to stop suing; thus, Congress must step in to set reasonable limits to otherwise unreasonable behavior.
Really, it couldn't be simpler. In the absence of such limits, greedy bastards like Bork and Berkowitz will sue without restraint. If homicide were legal, they'd probably do that too.
So what's the problem again?
-
"Nixon hatred?"
[Read the article: WSJ Op-Ed page decries hatred of the president]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How is Bush hatred different from Nixon hatred? That one was a crook too. Is there not such a thing as "justifiable hatred"?
And yeah, LBJ also started a war on false pretenses.