Letters to the Editor
Baldie McEagle
Published Letters: 992 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Just an observation
[Read the article: The right's selective political manipulation of Catholicism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]but anyone who considers abortion a more grave evil than launching a war of aggresion has carefully avoided thinking about the nature of suffering.
And furthermore, he/she hasn't read the New Testament. I'm an atheist who spent a lot of time in (a Presbyterian) church as a kid, and while I mostly read Revelations during the sermon, I probably know as much about it as the average self-identified Christian.
And it truly stumps me when fundamental Baptists (for example) seem to pay more attention to TV preachers, and their interpretations and accretions, than to the Bible they are supposed to follow. Or they let others interpret it for them, which is no different from having priests in the way between you and Jesus, which is what the Reformation was ostensibly about.
The Catholic Church has a built-in analogy in the form of the Pope. When did Jesus say, Thou shalt follow the man in the funny hat? But at least they are supposed to be specialists in the suffering department. When did the meaning of Suffer the little children change?
-
Hilarious and sad
[Read the article: The right's selective political manipulation of Catholicism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I literally heard her say "But Jesus never said to just stand there and take it".
---Also, to anonymust: Philly Catholics, officially, seem pretty damn conservative to me. Less so as individuals, of course.
---Also, has anyone seen scooter? I'm worried that he hasn't shown up to tell us we're atheist hypocrites who should mind our own business.
Maybe we should call him. Does anyone have a cell number?
-
Already covered, I'm sure
[Read the article: McCain embraces Bush's radical views of executive power]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]With a presumption that would have amazed the framers of our Constitution, and legal reasoning that would have mystified them, federal judges today issue rulings and opinions on policy questions that should be decided democratically. Assured of lifetime tenures, these judges show little regard for the authority of the president, the Congress, and the states. They display even less interest in the will of the people.
Schoolhouse Rock:
(a) The courts issue rulings on matters brought before them. Not on matters brought before the public---unless of course a legal matter comes up in the process which is brought before a court.
(b) The courts do consider the public good, but in the American system they primarily consider opposed arguments, precedent, and the law. They don't follow polls.
Is this level of ignorance supposed to be a plus or a minus in a presidential candidate? The framers of our Constitution would be amazed all right.
-
@ naschbac and adnoto
[Read the article: McCain embraces Bush's radical views of executive power]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Two, four, and six year terms are all too short to provide any sense of urgency for a forced removal of a recalcitrant politician. The process of recognizing the indiscretion and subsequently getting it elevated in public discourse over the breaches of naivety put you too close to the end of any term in existing elected positions. The consensus attitude becomes one of a waiting game. If we ignore the problem long enough it will go away on its own, because we can eventually elect someone else.
This is a really interesting point that I have never heard before. EVER. Yet I do actually hear people say, Oh well---next time. Which means 4-8 years, barring death, assassination, or blowjob.
Generally the discussion is always pointed the other way---term limits? or no term limits?
Someone else made a similar point about parliamentary democracy. I think rights are like muscles---they need to be exercised regularly. If we threw out our presidents---I mean, on their asses, sometimes with jail time---once every 20 or 30 years, we might actually get enough practice at it to be good at it. And you wouldn't get the eye-roll from the MSM every time you mention mere impeachment.
The last good chance we had was with Nixon. Somebody go spit on Ford's grave for me, please.
-
@cnabill
[Read the article: McCain embraces Bush's radical views of executive power]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Did you have a specific, coherent point?
-
@Ouroboros
[Read the article: McCain embraces Bush's radical views of executive power]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Obama is an example of something called a "junior senator."
Ponder that awhile, and you may get an answer to your questions.
-
A quibble, Sir
[Read the article: McCain embraces Bush's radical views of executive power]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The document only "works" if all sides agree to follow it and work within its parameters.
That would be a house of cards. The Constitution actually provides mechanisms for when "all side" do not play along. "Checks and balances" are some of these. Enforcement of laws is another, and also impeachment and recall.
I know you know this, IOW. But I think it's an important point. The Constitution is not a house of cards.
-
Hi Susan!
[Read the article: McCain embraces Bush's radical views of executive power]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How have you been?
-
@Ouroboros
[Read the article: McCain embraces Bush's radical views of executive power]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Explicitly, Obama is a junior senator, and your expectations of him are silly.
-
let's agree
[Read the article: McCain embraces Bush's radical views of executive power]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]that one thing the Constitution needs to survive is that all 3 branches not conspire to destroy it.
Or allow themselves to be neutralized.
Or that the citizens allow same.
-
@Rowan
[Read the article: McCain embraces Bush's radical views of executive power]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have to admit I didn't really follow that. But I'd like to hear more.
-
@adnoto
[Read the article: McCain embraces Bush's radical views of executive power]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I accept your point. Many people will be dancing in the streets if Obama is anointed King in Gondor, and I won't be one of them. I'll be watching for signs---watching him, and watching others, because the game won't be over.
Yet there must be some middle ground. First, I don't think not voting accomplishes anything at all. Second, if large chunks of the population choose not to vote, I'd expect that to be a symptom of a drop-out ("neutralized") attitude, not a commitment to more revolutionary revolution. So I'd ask, are we talking about not voting as an individual moral choice, or as a broad strategy?
Also, according to what I gather of your theory, what we need most is to be left with no options---perhaps for Obama to be assassinated, or McCain to win, or for the economy to truly and utterly collapse, or for the Worm to rule for 5000 years. Yes, those things will piss people off more and maybe to the point of serious action. I've said much the same thing right here.
But why can't we hope or work for these things or for some other truly revolutionary positive change AND vote for Obama or an acceptable write-in candidate, if he/she is the least of all available evils in the voting booth?