Letters to the Editor
-
WT's Definition and Jonathon's rights
Shooter wants the government not to take his money, except for the purposes of world domination. This he considers conservative.
WT. this way of looking at the world by many "libertarians" has been driving me crazy. Thank you for putting into such an elegant nutshell.
And, Jonathon, what ARE you trying to say? Are you attempting a philosophical dissection of "endowed by their Creator"? Or trying to deconstruct "inherent"? Obviously, our god-given rights are violated daily by our government (no matter in which country we are citizens). Are you arguing that because your rights are violated, they are no longer inherent? That because it is not possible to have 100% libertarian world order, then we have no rights? What kind of bunny is them dogs o'yours chasing?
The Brookses of this world are very dangerous, because they have such an aura of respectability. They are so reasonable, and they go to all the right parties, and everything. They couldn't possibly be radicals, that's so silly. Meanwhile, their acid drips, drips, drips, destroying the structure beneath ever so softly and surely.
-
I was about to say....
that mine at 7:05 (my time) was not meant to hurt feelings or give offense, quite the opposite in fact. I was also about to say that I'd happily avoid referring to you or your comments in the future if that is what you want.
Then I read your latest. You ask for comment, so it seems okay to break the pledge I was about to give. For what it's worth, I think that the message sent to you not only misunderstood you, but was pretty nasty about it. I think it was more about the writer than about you, and more importantly, I don't share the writer's view of your comments here, of your motives in writing them. Follow your own muse would be my advice, as we all have to anyway. There are those of us who think well of what you've done here, and I'm one of them
But back to the topic I originally intended: Please excuse whatever transgressions you believe I'm guilty of. I won't repeat them, at least not those concerning you.
-
William,
I was in total jest mood. Of course you did NOT offend me. The 'comment' I received 'blew me away.'
Jonathan, I have a Uncle's chipped West Point ring my parents gave me. Uncle Bernard was killed in a 'freak' plane crash. Wild wild big big world. O, or is it small?
-
Great dissection of Brooks/Neocon view~~
The thread is already a day old, so this won't be read by many, but I thought Glenn's comment on the revolutionary nature of the Bush agenda (sorry AJ, author of The Bush Agenda!) is reflective of a national awakening to the long-term scars America will suffer.
I made a new sign after the 4th anniversary of Bush's War on Iraq that I think fits here..."BUSH - the ANTI-AMERICAN".
Finally, an old protest sign I have, which I didn't use much, but will resurrect, has two messages that refer to topics Glenn raised.
"1984 - READ IT, DON'T LIVE IT", and on the flip-side,
"BUSH WAGES WAR ON AMERICA"
I made this one back in April of last year, and felt a little timid about the second statement, not knowing how wing-nuttia would respond. I think I should use it now, because there has been an awakening, finally!!
Styve
-
I recently had the unpleasant experience of watching someone I cared about die in agony
The agony was due to the fact that her doctors would not prescribe sufficient pain medication since they are terrified of being prosecuted by the DEA.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/29239.html
Most of us posting on this forum would probably agree that being free from torture is a desirable right to have.
The thirty percent of the population which makes up Bush's base would disagree and I'm sure that there are other Americans who would disagree also, possibly even a majority.
No one seems to be able to tell me where the "unalienable rights" come from other than to say that they are a social compact we make with ourselves. Since the compact possibly does not even extend so far as to provide a "right" to freedom from torture, I'm starting to think that the whole idea of "unalienable rights" is simply so much smoke and mirrors.
FWIW, I've started the same discussion on another political board with a lot more posters than here and I haven't had anyone give me a reasonable explanation there either. In fact the topic seems to have started a minor flamewar.
-
Dear SomeNYGuy
There is no center in American electoral politics. Somebody wins, somebody loses. Somebody enjoys the majority, somebody simmers in the minority. There's a party of the right and a party of the left. Al Gore and the congressional Democrats may not be as lefty a bunch as the breakfast table at Noam Chomsky's house, to be sure, but they are part of what constitutes the Left in American politics. If adopting Kyoto is really a priority for the Left, it's already been signed by Bill Clinton and there's a Democratic majority in the Senate. (I know, it's 67 to ratify a treaty; but we all know that's not rally what's holding them back, is it?)
The principal problem with the American Left and the Democratic Party is that they represent, to varying degrees, socialism in a country that generally doesn't want much socialism, and what socialism it does want it wants dressed up as something else. I don't use "socialist" here in a perjorative sense (the way "neocon" and "fascist" don't mean anything anymore other than "bad") but in the general sense of seeking greater government involvement in private affairs, with government actions guided by a bias toward reducing inequality of economic circumstances. When the Democrats try to enact some truly socialist course of legislation, say Mrs. Clinton's health-care scheme, they get burned. (Republicans, perversely, tend to do just fine introducing socialist programs, i.e. prescription-drug benefits.) Because the socialist party can't run on an openly socialist program (cf. Mondale, Walter: 49-state shutout of) they end up not proposing much in the way of affirmative policy, so that even when they're in the majority they act like a disenfranchised opposition party. (Which is just fine by me.)
So, no, I don't think VP Cheney represents the "center" of the political spectrum; he just represents the part where the executive power is, at least until the next election.