Letters to the Editor
calgodot
Published Letters: 256 Editor's Choice: 6
-
The Clinton Formulae - CLASSIFIED!!!
[Read the article: How the long primary battle helps Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]These are the lacunae and formulae which drive the minds of Hillary Clinton and her robotic followers. When utilizing these items for analysis, please exercise caution. The insertion of contradictory programming can cause a permanent fatal error in most Clintonites.
Basic Programming Formulae for Clintonite Model 2.0:
"Helping Hillary" = "Helping the Party"
Eg: 'My 35 years of leadership experience trumps the democratic process.'
"Not Helping Hillary" = "Hurting the Party"
Eg: 'Because you won't give me those votes I promised not to campaign for, the party will be hurt'
"Hurting Obama" = "Helping Hillary"
Eg: 'He would not be my pastor.'
"Helping McCain" = "Hurting Obama" = "Helping Hillary"
Eg: 'Wouldn't it be great to have two candidates who love America.'
-
Wow.
[Read the article: Is Briana Waters a terrorist?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Many of the letters here operate under the presumption that Waters was somehow involved in the arson. Yet there is no evidence of that, other than the testimony of two witnesses of questionable credibility, whose testimony was derived in a fashion that compels suspicion of the investigation itself (and thus any evidence submitted by the prosecution).
You see, people are quick to judge, quick to convict, and quick to condemn. The letter-writers above see themselves as "concerned citizens," and ape that the sentence was perhaps harsh. They miss the one simple fact: there is no credible evidence which places Waters at the scene of the crime. There is considerable reasonable doubt as to her complicity and involvement.
That is the standard in this case, people: reasonable doubt. Not preponderance of evidence (of which there is none). Not guilt by association (of which there is some). There is a great deal of reason to doubt the case of the prosecution. In their presentation of the case before the court, the prosecutors did not overcome reasonable doubt. But they did managed to activate the unreasonable qualities of the people on the jury - their ignorance and fear.
It is possible, even probably, that an innocent person has been unreasonably convicted of a crime. It is perhaps unquestionable that, even if she did serve as lookout, the sentence is (and will be) unreasonably harsh. As the letters here indicate, even those who sympathize have her convicted in their minds. That she associated with "elves" is enough for many Americans to either judge and convict, or merely shrug their shoulders and suggest Waters got what she deserves.
I am not surprised (not one iota) by the unreasonable outcome of this case. The judge was American, the lawyers were American and the jury was American. Locked into this system of fear, denial and ignorance we the people and out elected representatives have created, there is little likelihood one can expect reason from a jury of Americans. One cannot even expect it from a legion of ostensible "liberal" and reasonable letter-writers, who are as quick to judge on scanty evidence, quick to react from prejudice and fear, as those who sat in actual judgment of Waters.
There is not a preponderance of reason among the American people. But there is a good deal of fear, denial, and ignorance. In such a climate, there can be no true justice.
-
Say a Thanks fo Hillary and Company
[Read the article: Obama-Bloomberg '08?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If he's the nominee, Obama will face enough trouble in the general election campaign because of his race.
We can thank the Clinton campaign for fueling that fire (and we'll likely see them fanning the flames, even if Obama wins the nomination).
And we must say a special thanks to Geraldine Ferraro, Bill Clinton, and of course the ever-ambitious Hillary Clinton, all of whom were willing to play on the racial insecurities and fears of voters.
I doubt the McCain crew would ever be able (or willing, given McCain's insistence on propriety) to pull of such a show and still face the people in the morning.
-
A Major Difference
[Read the article: Rum, Romanism and James Carville]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Samantha Power, as the article notes, "immediately" attempted to retract her words. She did not go on TV and radio to defend her words, as did Geraldine Ferraro. Notably, Power does not defend her words today, while Ferraro is far from contrite and continues to insist she was the victim. Bill Clinton has yet to apologize for his obvious suggestion that Barack Obama does not love America as much as Hillary or John McCain.
Additionally, the Obama campaign has not resorted to recirculating slurs and attacks from the right-wing press, while the Clinton campaign does exactly that, thus enabling the very people who have persecuted the Clintons for years.
To anyone not already blinded by bias or prejudice, there is a clear, compelling, and obvious difference between the tenor and tactics of the official campaigns as well as that of their followers, workers, loyalists, and stooges. Clinton is even willing to suck up to people who have slurred her name, persectued her family, and created in this country a climate of obnoxious rhetoric.
I suppose some people admire a person who will say anything or do anything to win.
Not me.
-
Lighten up, folks!
[Read the article: And now we must praise Tracey Ullman]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]For people who purport to enjoy comedy, you folks don't have much of a sense of humor. Johnson clearly has her tongue tickling her cheek on this one.
The second paragraph is the five-alarm clue, her faux outrage intended to segue you into a hilarious rap of faux-feminist polemic about a piece of faux journalism from a faux news network.
While she's serious about her theme (generally, that women ought to enjoy the same options as men), Johnson is applying a good deal of humor to her report. There's a definite tone of sarcasm and snark, prime components in even the cheapest irony.
Of course, it's hard to recognize intended irony these days, when there's so much free-floating irony in the air.
-
Pathetic.
[Read the article: Why John Edwards hasn't endorsed Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This entire piece consists of a quote from another source.
Joan Walsh didn't write this column: she merely assembled it.
Another pathetic, empty attempt at "gotcha" "journalism" from Joan Walsh.
-
Wait a sec...
[Read the article: In memory of Gordon Ramsay]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You mean...
Reality TV...
isn't...
REAL?!?!
Ohmigod.
I think I'm going to have a nervous breakdown.