Letters to the Editor
Baldie McEagle
Published Letters: 992 Editor's Choice: 3
-
"Serious" and "substantive"
[Read the article: Presidential candidates and "substance"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]These words have the same origin and purpose. They are code words signalling that a person or idea is safely "inside the box."
That is, a serious plan for Iraq accepts the implicit assumptions about American power that got us there: that militarism is a part of American politics and economics. A substantive health care plan accepts that socialism doesn't work and Americans will always prefer inequities in that area: that corporate profits are more important than efficiency and affordability. A townsman may stand and speak in the Council without being called a madman or worse if he does not actually suggest resistance to the aristocratic parasites who choke social and political reform in their cradles.
It's that "box" that will suppress this country's ability to reform its imperial system and will become its coffin if journalists don't start denying its assumptions and denying the pundits and politicians the ability to use it as a tool of reaction without ever being forced to defend it.
-
What cracks me up
[Read the article: Will National Review correct Cliff May's false Iraq claims?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]is that May actually seems to think that Americans think that, when they pull the lever, they are not directly electing their legislative representatives, but that they are merely waving their hands to indicate disapproval of the president's high officials to the president.
Similiarly, he assumes that Americans have even heard of Casey, whoever that is (a general?), and therefore were able to "vote" against him.
This is the most delusional head-up-ass-ism I have ever seen. But it's firmly grounded in a desire that Congress go away forever, so that American elections actually do become sessions of hand-waving at the Emperor.
-
Mr May and the Grand Debate about the Constitution
[Read the article: Will National Review correct Cliff May's false Iraq claims?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I also just emailed Cliff May after reading his post, saying more or less what I said in my post above, and "I am forced to conclude that you are a liar."
The response:
I can’t tell you how sick I am of people like you who can’t disagree in a civil manner and have to resort to calling their opponents liars.
This isn't quite fair of him. To give him a way out, I also suggested that he might simply be a refugee from the Austro-Hungarian Empire who was not familiar with our nation's political system. But he didn't admit to that.
-
May
[Read the article: Will National Review correct Cliff May's false Iraq claims?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]seems to have a lot of time on his hands right now. He's trying to start an email fight with me.
I suggest everyone email him right now.
-
@Holly
[Read the article: Will National Review correct Cliff May's false Iraq claims?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You're right, but it's too much work ot be polite and mocking at the same time. And I find the situation to be far too absurd. But perhaps I should have left that off.
I admit that when I write these people I don't even expect a response.
-
@Glenn
[Read the article: Will National Review correct Cliff May's false Iraq claims?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There's a clue in May's latest post: that pollsters "may have a bias" and therefore presumably may be dismissed entirely. And that's part of the "liberal freaks" argument.
It is truly odd that May can make such a contorted assertion with a straight face. I'd bet that he gives himself every possible benefit of the doubt whenever he hears a contradictory fact, as above, so habitually that he no longer knows he does it.
But I never dreamed that an entire branch of the US government could be brushed off as inconvenient.
-
@Danny Doom
[Read the article: Will National Review correct Cliff May's false Iraq claims?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think that question raises a larger issue that I find fascinating. To me, it seems like it ought to be clear to all by now that invading/killing/overthrowing a ruler, whatever his or her political leanings or geopolitical camp, only accomplishes just that and no more, and often does actual damage to your cause.
Back in 1945, whatever their failings, the Allies saw at least this clearly: that you need to do more than kill to replace an ideology.
And one of the best things to do is nothing. Sure, you can open up a new front your enemy can't handle, or tempt him into a trap (see Afghanistan). But these actions have costs. And sure, doing nothing has its costs too.
But if you really want to remove an ideology for along, long time, you let it play out and get old. Leave it alone and unprotected in the harsh world. Wait and see whether your enemy can create a sustainable political economy without hanging himself. So if a trash-talking murderer takes over Egypt from Mubarak (and that would be different how?), then let him make enough enemies who will kill him before you need to.
Because the best way to remove a despot with whom you are not at war is to give him plenty of rope (see the Bush presidency).
-
I keep telling you people
[Read the article: ABC News' bizarre "scoop" on Iran's nuclear program]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The source for the ABC report on Iran's future WMDs is . . . well, YOU know where!
-
Memories . . .
[Read the article: Newt Gingrich's 1997 trip to China]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I remember that trip by Gingrich. It was a minor flap that "some people" objected to but in general was not taken seriously.
Meanwhile, the WaPo editorial page grows more and more like that of the WSJ: divorced from the reality of its own reportage. It's really becoming like the Kremlinology of the 70s. You have to read between the lines of the lies to see the truth.
Thanks to sysprog for digging up the real story. When the WaPo comes out against something, you can be sure it never happened. Just like hearing about the "running dogs of American capitalism."
-
Dat ol debbil
[Read the article: The right-wing brain in action]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Define winner and loser. Would the winner be praying to Mecca five times a day? Like I say, the only unilateral way to peace is surrender. Is that what you have in mind as a winning strategy?
There's that old canard again. Scooter (and any others of the uninformed out there), Islam does indeed mean "submission," as has been pointed out by friends of yours.
But it's not your submission they are interested in, as Muslims. It's THEIRS. (Wish you could say the same about Christians and salvation.)
Someday we'll have a real public education system in this country again.
-
@desert son
[Read the article: Response from ABC News re: the Saddam-anthrax reports]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think the term you're looking for is "house of cards."
As in:
"The American global empire is a house of cards awaiting the slight motion that will trigger collapse."