Letters to the Editor
Baldie McEagle
Published Letters: 984 Editor's Choice: 3
-
But... but...
[Read the article: Enemies everywhere]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]PW desperately needs to feel squeezed by both "sides." He needs to experience daily evidence of hate and disdain and feelings of powerlessness to have a solid sense of personhood, and so he posits himself as "victimized by everyone." Thus, he provides an example of the very psychology Glenn describes.
I guess that makes him braver than Repugs, at least. They are only frightened by nonconservative nonwhite nonmales.
-
Am I the only one
[Read the article: Enemies everywhere]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]getting brightstar confused with ProWar?
Have I lost my moral compass?
Never fear, scooter will send me a sign.
*****
Someone raised the question of "Right" vs "Left." My old understanding of "left" vs "right" was that conservatives favor strengthening the state over the individual, while liberals favor strengthening the individual over the state. That's fine as far as it goes---both valid perspectives---and that simple formula still applies a little bit. There always was a private vs public difference as well, which paradoxically runs counter to the guns vs butter divide. At the far end of each, then, you have the private state (autocrats) vs the people's dictator (you know who).
But at least 3 gaps have opened up between traditional conservative rhetoric and current neocon action:
(1) The state is being weakened and its stature diminished by the purchase of "guns," the use of guns, and policies based on the use of guns. This is less an incompetence issue, although it is that, than it is an issue of ideologues being handed free reign by greedy Dominionists and angry businessmen.
(2) The state is practically being sold off to the private sector, in the sense that outsourcing government functions means we may never govern ourselves again. I include both legal and corrupt contracting and leasing as well as election-year bribing.
(3) The individual used to be paid at least some lip service by the conservative. But now the only individuals who have any rights appear to be members and supporters of the administration. This is no more than a retreat from true conservative republicanism to pure aristocracy.
I think one difference that has arisen to form the current right-left opposition is that the corporation is now more powerful and flexible than ever before in history. This explains both (1) and (2), and even to some degree (3). It also explains the abandonment by the Right of individual rights in favor of corporate ones, while the Right still tries to suggest that being Black is a form of hedonism not worthy of public support.
So try this formula---forget the state:
"Conservatives favor strengthening the corporation over the individual, while liberals favor strengthening the individual over the corporation."
One could argue that plenty of Democrats also support the corporations over the individual, but then we already did know there was something wrong there ...
-
brightstar ...
[Read the article: Enemies everywhere]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]you're confusing the Left with the Democratic Party. You're also doing nothing more than setting up 2 straw men to play knock'em-sock'em robots with, one of them drawing from a Stalinist stereotype. This isn't about party. No party can be trusted---no one can be trusted.
But you haven't said a lot about things you WOULD support.
-
Does any body have
[Read the article: The Senate's FISA agreement]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]a good single source for congresspeople's email addresses? I want to email about 4 senators at once (the candidates and my own), and the Senate page only directs you to Web forms ...
-
@scooter
[Read the article: The Senate's FISA agreement]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]scooter, my boy, what "random numbers" are you talking about?
Are you telling us the NSA (or whoever) is just experimenting with random numbers? And ATT&T is assisting them in this? Legally, of course, but maybe just to be on the safe side, they need to be sure they're covered because no one signed a human participant consent form? Why does an experiment in random numbers need participant consent?
Do you need a warrant to test random numbers now? My god, those liberals have really tied out hands. What a fuss they've created.
-
I see
[Read the article: The Senate's FISA agreement]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Perhaps Dick Cheney just wants to cheat when he plays Scrabble. I can see then how he'd want a huge searchable database of all the words people use in their daily emails.
That dirty bastard!
-
spooger
[Read the article: Republicans have become the credibility-free party]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'll bet they don't walk around without hard hats on construction sites, either. Or poke nails in their eyes. Or drive with headlights off at night. Or have sex with sailors without a condom. Or ...
Cowards, those Dems. How will they take on the big meanies?
-
@numbstar
[Read the article: Republicans have become the credibility-free party]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I can't figure out what's up your butt.
Most commenters here are well aware that the nation's dominant parties are basically 2 wings of the same corporate/war party. At least we're all aware of the concept, even if some don't agree.
And why you come here to rage against Paul-haters, I can't imagine. Perhaps to rail against the commenters who accused GG of endorsing Paul?
Sheesh. Leave the rest of us out of your angry little jihad, already.
-
I think it's time!
[Read the article: Fun and games with terrorist threats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]the Democrats in Congress call for more oversight of Al Qaeda. The Repugs are running them with hardly any checks or oversight. We can't afford to let such an important component of US state security to be so poorly mismanaged.
I mean, we haven't had a high state of alert since last August? Come on! we're hardly getting our money's worth here.
Maybe we can at least get the terror alerts signed by a secret FISA court. What's Dodd's position on this?
-
@Tomhere
[Read the article: Fun and games with terrorist threats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Are you paranoid? Probably a little bit. I mean, you have no evidence that the DNC convention will be bombed. You have merely deduced that it would be an excellent target from the GOP's point of view. Plenty of predictions have been made on such a basis, and they have failed to come true.
But you are well within your rights, I think, to expect something to happen. It's a tough call right now to say whether a new 9/11 would help or hurt the Rethuglicans. Likely hurt more than help, I think. And remember, unless you think the CIA pulled off 9/11 themselves, rather than security having been stood down, there's no reason to think anyone thinks the DNC is a target but you and the GOP.