Letters to the Editor
Baldie McEagle
Published Letters: 992 Editor's Choice: 3
-
@adnoto
[Read the article: McCain embraces Bush's radical views of executive power]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You really shouldn't conflate the two as if they are somehow equal.
I didn't. I had no idea third-party candidates had been ruled out of bounds. Certain commenters spoke as though the "other" option was not voting at all, so I assumed ALL candidates were considered unacceptable. This is, after all, not a Democratic Party discussion group.
Obviously you can do whatever you like Baldie. But I think you are kidding yourself. A vote for Obama is a vote for perpetuating the system and the establishment. Period. There hasn't been any significant action taken yet. Why would there be any action taken if Obama is elected? Do whatever you like Baldie. It is a "free" country after all.
Who said anything about voting for Obama? I agree completely that Obama is withing the system and of the system. I don't think I have ever "kidded" myself about that. But I do intend to vote for him, if only so I don't afterward feel like I stood by and did nothing while the world fell apart around me.
-
OT, but less so than Susan's idiocies
[Read the article: McCain embraces Bush's radical views of executive power]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]May 7th, 2008 | WASHINGTON -- Lawmakers on Wednesday tentatively agreed that national security officials should fully control the expected transfer of research of highly contagious foot-and-mouth disease from an offshore laboratory to the U.S. mainland near livestock.
The Bush administration requested the legal change, which would erode the traditional role of the Agriculture Department in deciding the safest location to research one of the world's most contagious animal viruses. The virus does not infect humans but could devastate livestock herds.
http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/2008/05/07/D90H30LG1_animal_disease/index.html
-
@adnoto
[Read the article: McCain embraces Bush's radical views of executive power]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes, definitely it's been confusing.
Who said anything about voting for Obama? -- Baldie McEagle
? You did Baldie. I mean we have all been discussing establishment candidates (Obama, McCain, Clinton) wrt voting or not, but you said something about Obama in the quote below. What am I missing here? Remember this comment(?):
"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..." -- Baldie McEagle
Wednesday, May 7, 2008 01:36 PM
And... how is the above statement not conflating voting for Obama with a write-in candidate? Seriously. I don't get it. I mean "AND vote for obama or an acceptable write in candidate." How is that not equating those two choices? I am not angry or upset here... I am just thoroughly confused.
As far as I could piece it together, the debate appeared to be about voting for a progressive Democratic candidate (Obama?) versus not voting for any Democratic candidate because none were good or progressive enough. Or perhaps for not voting any candidate at all---that part wasn't clear to me, but I didn't and don't really care how the question is defined as long as the answer actually answers the question.
I didn't choose the topic. I was just questioning the idea---and trying to do so as carefully yet precisely as possible---of throwing one's vote away entirely. Clearly voting for Nader, for example, would be a middle ground between the "best" mainstream candidate and staying home or throwing bombs.
I wasn't asking about myself regarding Obama. I know what I want to do. (I should have said, Who said anything about me voting for Obama?)
Does that help?
-
@Rowan
[Read the article: McCain embraces Bush's radical views of executive power]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Much clearer, thanks.
I almost posted, the other day, a comment about how libertarianism as Americans know it (whatever it is) does not seem to be practiced in Europe---that it appears not to be needed there, and therefore I don't see why it should be needed here. But I lack a sufficiently good perspective on Europolitics to say that with any certainty.
I find it indistinguishable from a kind of corporatist anarchism. By devaluing the public space, it leads inevitably to providing excuses for the corporate feudalism---or, as you suggest, theocracy---that fills that space. Even setting aside the ingrained fear of anything social as socialistic, it is this disregard for---and devastation to---the public space that I despise the most about life in the US.
You don't need to know anything about politics or Calvinism to see it---just compare the architecture, or parks.
-
Aych
[Read the article: McCain embraces Bush's radical views of executive power]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If all the presented choices are odious to me then I do not see abstaining from voting as "throwing my vote away".
Would you vote for a write-in or third-party candidate?
I agree that reluctantly supporting someone you disapprove of does nothing for you. But surely voting for a sure loser for the right reasons is better than that, and better than disappearing completely.
I generally accept that politicians are people I would not want in my house. Nor do I invite in the guys picking up my trash, or have the plumber over to dinner. As far as I'm concerned, the people I vote for work for me in the same way---but there is no way to give them specific orders attached to your vote.
How do you know you're not being too picky? What are your standards? How odious is "odious"? How do you expect to have any influence as a nonvoter?
-
Sure, but not the way we do
[Read the article: McCain embraces Bush's radical views of executive power]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]well, we do have it, but it isn't seen as something spiritual, just as an ultra-free-market economic doctrine
No mere ultra-"free market" doctrine approaches the "hyper-individualism" (as you call it) you'll find here. And you'll find it virtually everywhere, in every school, backyard, and driver's seat---not just gun shops and think tanks.
And while it's not always tied to religion, the idea that "God wants Christian women to be the most beautiful in the world," as Tammi Faye Bakker put it (i.e., rich, materialistic, etc.), is certainly uniquely American.
You simply cannot propose the smallest public effort without hearing complaints about individual rights.