Letters to the Editor
-
The founding fathers are rolling in their graves
How did we arrive to an almost universal consensus in this country that the USA will be involved in wars in perpetuity? The founding fathers designed a brilliant document that was supposed to prevent us from becoming an empire that is fighting wars halfway around the world. We have been invading sovereign countries at will or changed their regimes through proxies for so long, it's hard to remember that it wasn't always like that, and the public just accepts it as if was normal and a matter of fact. US corporations fell threatened by a foreign government and boom, that government is overthrown. Guatemala, Iran, Chile, Panama, Grenada, the list goes on and on. Why wouldn't there be groups fighting us around the world? Our imperial conduct guarantees that we will have enemies for ever, unless we stop being an aggressive militarist empire. Our nation went into convulsions when Saddam invaded and occupied Kuwait, while we have been doing similar stuff for generations, as if it's our inherited prerogative to determine who rules which country. We have replaced Great Britain as the most aggressive and ruthless imperial power, and we don't even have a national debate about it. Just mind boggling.
-
"Declaring a section of Pakistan "hardly" part of the nation is like saying North Dakota is "hardly" part of the US"
Have you ever been to North Dakota?
-
On a related tangent...
According to the Wayne Madsen Report on July 26th...
Word has it that Politico, the paper edition of which is given away free, is facing financial problems. We have also learned that key staff members have been laid off and that more pink slips may follow.
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/ (subscription required)
-
Not surprisingly
shooter's got no "there" there. Whenever confronted, he resorts to namecalling and dishonesty.
He mentioned Vu. You mean this guy?
Vu fell out of favor with the county Democrats who brought him in as election after election was engulfed in chaos. Calls for his removal rang out from the election protection community, including the Columbus Free Press.
Vu was then supported by Robert Bennett, chair of the Board of Elections. Bennett also serves as chair of the Ohio Republican Party. The two Democrats on the BOE tried to have Vu removed, but Bennett and the other Republican on the board voted to keep him. The board remained deadlocked when then-Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, a Republican, refused to cast a ballot, thus saving Vu's job.
http://freepress.org/departments/display/19/2007/2410
Yep, sounds like he was working to sabotage the election in favor of the Democrats, huh?
As far as the person here who claims that shooter is against Muslims in general, it still doesn't explain why he is in favor of U.S. troops being killed defending an Islamic Republic.
In fact, there is no consistency in any stance shooter chooses to attribute to himself, which has been pointed out many times. What has not been pointed out is how rarely shooter attributes any particular position to himself at all. For all his inane blather, he is very careful to commit to a particular point of view other than Liberals suck, so there.
-
@prunes
Indeed. Every violent act represents a failure, a failure of negotiation, yes, but more fundamentally it is a failure to manage one's own expectations of others.
Goodness, we have a stoic in the group perhaps.:-)
A wonderful post, and sentiments that need a public, national forum. I hope we all someday come to realize how smart your words are.
Note: "Virtue, reason, and natural law are prime directives. By mastering passions and emotions, Stoics believe it is possible to overcome the discord of the outside world and find peace within oneself. Stoicism holds that passion distorts truth, and that the pursuit of truth is virtuous." (wikipedia)
-
Rufus X:
In fact, there is no consistency in any stance shooter chooses to attribute to himself, which has been pointed out many times. What has not been pointed out is how rarely shooter attributes any particular position to himself at all.
Maybe Shooter is really just a sockpuppet/alias for a group of fraternity brothers, all of whom have access to some central "house" computer?
-
Is Glenn a Consequentialist?
Glenn says:
Anonymity is still critical for good investigative journalism. ... But generally speaking, Hiatt's noble depiction of anonymity is pure fiction. It is used far, far more often to enable government mischief and even criminality, not to expose it. And that changes the calculus for determining ...
He seems to take the consequentialist position here: A consequence of protecting anonymity enables government mischief and criminality.
He has mentioned before his distaste for free speech restriction laws in other countries; for example:
Reading about a Government somewhere punishing people for their ideas simply violates core American beliefs about the proper role of government and what is or is not a legitimate exercise of state power. [ http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/02/are-there-american-political-values.html ]
But, if Glenn is a consequentialist, then some speech might have only or mostly bad consequences (say terror-inciting imams or doctor-killing anti-abortionists) and therefore we may rightly restrict it.
Is Glenn a consequentialist? Is there any comparison? Am I missing something?
-
Something new: something that wasn't happening 6 months ago.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/5181.html
The Politico
Editorial pages turn on war
By: Alicia C. Shepard
Jul 31, 2007[...] newspapers have remained largely silent on troop withdrawal until recently.
"It is easy to find papers that have been harshly critical of the conduct of the war, but you can't confuse that with calling for a major change in direction or pullout," said Greg Mitchell, editor of Editor and Publisher magazine, which covers the newspaper industry. "The New York Times is a good example of being bitter [about the war] for years but not calling for withdrawal" -- until it finally did so on July 8.
[...] An examination by The Politico of more than 50 newspaper editorials found that an increasing number of papers now say the war is not winnable and the troops must leave Iraq.
[...] Some have called directly to get out of Iraq; others have taken a more nuanced approach. This past Sunday, The Dallas Morning News -- one of the largest-circulation dailies in Bush's home state -- stopped just short of demanding that the troops return home. [...] "It is time for Iraqi troops to take over this fight, even if it means risking full-blown civil war," said the July 29 Morning News editorial.
[...] "The Fort Worth Star-Telegram published its 'get out now' editorial on May 1," said editorial writer J.R. Labbe. "Unexpected for a newspaper that twice endorsed Bush for president and is in the heart of the reddest-of-red Texas counties."
[...] The decision to call for withdrawal was especially problematic for The Olympian in Olympia, Wash., because McChord Air Force Base and Fort Lewis Army Base are in the paper's backyard. The Olympian's editorial appeared on the Fourth of July: "We have to begin the withdrawal of troops. It needs to be an orderly exodus in order to protect our troops and to give some hope that the Iraqi army will fill the void over time," wrote the 33,000-daily-circulation paper.
[...] By no means are all newspapers advocating Americans get out of Iraq, however. Ed Kelley, editor of The Oklahoman, represents those supporting the administration's policies.
[...] The Arizona Republic, a "big supporter" of the war, also has no plans to call for withdrawal and backs Bush's decision to send some 20,000 more troops for one final push.
- - Alicia C. Shepard