Letters to the Editor
Baldie McEagle
Published Letters: 992 Editor's Choice: 3
-
@ futhark
[Read the article: Rudy Giuliani's messianic paranoia]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I generally agree completely with both your comments (except for the 9/11 conspiracy part, although I believe skepticism of government is always healthy), and that's why I'm taking up the discussion. But you've simply restated your position that the Islamic terrorist threat to the US is minor. It is and it isn't minor.
The fact is that the risks and hazards of terrorist attack in the US are unknown and always will be. We agree that they are low, but enough uncertainty exists that anyone who wants can make hay of them. They are elastic, in other words, and thus, we have Giuliani's cynical braying and Glenn's post. Who can stretch them farther? Who can stretch them farthest?
The fact that the real risks and hazards are low simply does not translate to corresponding political risks and hazards. To a politician, the risks and hazards are much, much higher than to a citizen.
Therefore, the politicians have all abandoned any pretense of speaking about the real risks and hazards. They are so low as to present a political risk in themselves. Forget about them---they do not drive our discourse. Only the political risks and hazards count.
Political risk of attack: unacceptable.
Political hazards of attack: astronomical.
We must understand this. It's not quite the same as the Social Security myth and other outright fabrications. It has a basis in reality and in the logic of survival.
By minimizing these, we render ourselves irrelevant. I argued that we must make use of them in an honest and realistic way, by telling the truth in the right way and toward a particular goal, so that the cynical butt-covering of right and center are exposed.
One adjunct to such a strategy may be to shift the emphasis from they-will-kill-us (terrorists) to they-fear-us (Muslims in general). They justifiably fear us and the evidence is abundant. I see that as the easiest path, since (a) it doesn't deny that the terrorists "hate" us and our "way of life" and (b) it makes us feel better vs making us feel worse. That is, it presents the fewest vulnerabilities. And it suggests that the more we do to them, the more we will suffer blowback. Some voters already get this. And it's not fear-mongering at all.
Once there, one can publicly suggest that we back off on the knee-jerk lashing-out of military adventurism without declaring defeat. Working with Muslims and Muslim countries will bring obvious security benefits. Security will never stop being a hot issue, but we can gain control of the security area if we treat the risks and hazards of terrorist attack "with utmost seriousness."
-
@Nulla
[Read the article: Rudy Giuliani's messianic paranoia]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]you're exactly right. Giuliani is more of an opportunist than even most of the Repug's candidates. Lookit all them actual governors! And he cares less what he says---he thrives on his bomb-throwing persona.
As to Spain, it makes perfect sense that they would vote without fear. They have memories of fascism. They have experience of bombs. Politicians there can afford to be realistic and truthful.
We do not. Ours cannot. Not yet.
-
Come on, lil scooter
[Read the article: Rudy Giuliani's messianic paranoia]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Talk about my messianic paranoia. Did you look up those big words yet?
-
Anonymous is as silly as ever
[Read the article: Rudy Giuliani's messianic paranoia]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Russians helped us. (By making Hitler think of them as his main enemy)
We helped the Russians. (By sending them light tanks, supplies, and money)
The Russians helped us. (By stopping Hitler)
We helped the Russians. (By invading Italy and France through Africa)
The Russians helped us. (By defeating Hitler in the east and rolling him back)
We helped the Russians. (By invading Normandy and finally taking out the Japanese)
"Alliance."
Of course, then they stabbed us in the back at Potsdam, but what do you expect? All Commies, you know.
-
@anonymous
[Read the article: Rudy Giuliani's messianic paranoia]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You may want to get your irony checked before you get sarcastic...
-
That's right ...
[Read the article: Rudy Giuliani's messianic paranoia]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Overlord was just an excursion across the Channel. And the Germans greeted them with flowers. Then they stabbed us in the back.
Did you miss that in your readings, Anonymous?
-
@bethincary
[Read the article: Rudy Giuliani's messianic paranoia]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The USSR got the worst of the German's assaults, as Anonymous incoherently points out. Sure, they were defending their nation, but they suffered more casualties, military and civilian, and fought across a much larger area (excluding the Pacific war).
So the point is not that the Western Allies' war effort was insignificant, but that the Western Theater was not the main theater. The Eastern Front was the fulcrum of the war. Let's say it was 2/3 of the war on Germany, vs 1/3 borne directly by the other Allies.
So the point is not that Communism saved the world, but that the US didn't save the world alone. There was an alliance of equal partners.
If any single country saved the world, it wasn't the US by any objective measure, but Russia. We ran a strong second.
-
Anonymous is as silly as ever
[Read the article: Rudy Giuliani's messianic paranoia]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]1980? 1997?
What are you on about, man?
Who needs a rest here?
-
@scooter
[Read the article: The Tom Friedman of 2002 has not gone anywhere]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We're at war with the Saudis now? I guess it was going to happen sooner or later. Throwing crappy countries against the wall and all that.
-
"Idiots"
[Read the article: The Tom Friedman of 2002 has not gone anywhere]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's not just Tom and Maureen, it's the editors who think we all want to read this shit. These columns make me think of college-newspaper journalists desperately trying to be saucy and edgy. Next perhaps we will hear of how various world leaders fit into her who-spanks-whom schematic. How edifying.
And Friedman's fantasy could not be more pointless. Perhaps he is not aware that elections serve the purpose of allowing a change in government, the opposite of legitimizing a permanent regime. He may as well pair Gandhi and Mussolini for his dream team. And what would that say about his conception of the American republic and its role in the world?
OT: I just looked at my copy of REASON that I get with Salon, and it has Giuliani on the cover. The headline is The Liberal Candidate, I kid you not. The sub-head is something like "Is he Barry Goldwater or Bobby Kennedy"?