Letters to the Editor
-
I think that's the right distinction, CBart
One of the big problems with illegal immigration is that the immigrants can undercut citizens and legal immgrants in the job market, not only by taking lower wages, but by being completely unprotected by US labor law. You don't have to pay them benefits, you can fire them without worrying about a lawsuit, and if they get hurt on the job, you don't have to pay worker's comp--just send them home.
And we're not just talking about big corporations here--we're talking about home remodelers, lawncare companies and that little restaurant you went to on your last date. They're all hiring illegals and in most cases, screwing them every chance they get.
We need as a country to decide how many immigrants we need to keep the economy going, invite them in to become Americans with full rights, and that's it.
-
If it Snows, Global Warming MUST be a Hoax
At the risk of stating the obvious, I hope we all are aware that the corporate media's bias toward Hillary typically is betrayed by what they call her. Those who admire -- or at least respect her -- refer to her as Hillary Clinton, or Hillary, or Sen. Clinton. Those who abhor her refer to her as Hillary Rodham Clinton; and it is worse than using her middle name as if she were a presidential assassin. In the angry authoritarian world of the radical right, "Rodham" apparently is code for uppity feminist bitch, or in their parlance, "Feminazi".
Among the declared candidates, I like Edwards-Obama '08; but I also am intrigued by the possibility that after a decade of 'The Daily Howler', the corporate media might be shamed into finally giving Al Gore a fair shake this time around. But Hillary Clinton would be a fine president; and in light of the atrocious behavior of the so-called republicans in the last ten years, I will vote for whomever the Dems select. The republicans have behaved SO badly, they deserve to be punished for a generation, just as the Dems have been punished as "tax and spend liberals" for a generation following LBJ's Vietnam and Great Society.
CDR42, yours was a pretty damn good list. I would quibble that the U.S. middle class is not overtaxed, though I agree the top 20% is undertaxed. The CEO who just received a $210,000,000 golden parachute should have to pay at least 99% of it in federal and state taxes. And illegal immigration really is suppressing our wages (and is grossly unfair to would-be legal immigrants from places other than Latin America). Tom Brokaw recently did a pretty good report on illegal labor; but he naively trumpeted $14/hour wages as proof that Americans are "unwilling" to do labor, without also revealing how terribly scarce and expensive housing is in and around the Colorado mountain resorts. Illegal workers temporarily willing to live ten-to-a-small house and carpool long distances are the only people able to survive even on such wages; conversely, U.S. employers would have to pay a living wage, even if it is $25/hour or more, if illegal labor were not readily available.
-
As a Democrat, no on Hilary (at least in the primary)
Here are the deal breakers:
1. She voted yes on the Iraq war resolution.
2. She thinks that Congress can and should outlaw flag-burning by a federal statute.
I am not impressed by the other Dem candidates, not even Obama, who to me might be qualified but actually is the candidate to assuage white guilt.
In any case, it does not matter who the Dems put up as candidate because the electoral college is biased in favor of Republibans. As long as the Republiban nominate someone who doesn't eat fetuses for breakfast, he (probably not she) will win.
-
Why?
What does she have to offer on climate?
What does she have to offer on the war?
Which political accomplishments does she have? Getting elected is not an accomplishment as such - you need to have made a difference after being elected. Voting at your party's core is a job anyone can accomplish. Starting initiatives to reduce our freedom does make a difference, granted. However that's not a positive difference in my eyes. Having a vote but not using it, or using it in the wrong way (e.g. to lead the US into the Iraq disaster) is not a positive difference either.
Ok, she is a woman, but is that really enough for feminists? Is that so important that you put up with this lousy politician, just to get a shot at the first female presidency?
-
Clinton's critics exposed
It has been entertaining to read these letters and see the anti-Hillary vitriol exposed as the thinly veiled misogyny it truly is. Senator Clinton's critics began with the predictable cries that she is "unelectable" and "calculating," and progressed to whining that she is a "feminist" (gasp!) who "reminds too many men of their ex-wives." The qualities that we look for in a good politician (ambition, certitude, savviness) stand in direct opposition to how most people think a good woman should be (docile, subordinate). If Hillary Clinton were a man, she would not be perceived as being inherently worse than any other candidate in the race. It is interesting to me that most reporters seem to be giving Clinton's critics the benefit of the doubt, rather than pointing out the sexist undertones of their complaints.
As an example, let's take the war issue. Sure Clinton voted for the war, but so did Edwards. Yes, Obama took a stand against the war. I feel certain this was an easier position to take in the Illinois legislature than it was in the U.S. Senate were the votes mattered. All of these "progressives" who say they wouldn't vote for Clinton in a general election because of her war vote were more than happy to cast a ballot for Kerry, who also voted for the war, in 2004. Funny how they are now suddenly compelled to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
In the future, save us all the trouble and just say that you don't want a woman to become president if that is the case. Trust me, sexism from lefty dudes is nothing new.