Letters to the Editor

Letters posted here are associated with the following article:
Clips from the Sept. 11, 2003, "Charlie Rose" show contain some worthwhile insights.
The letters thread is now closed.
  • I find Huckabees' add with Chuck Norris

    to be THE ad which best epitomizes the GOP and neoconjobs.

    Like all of the other neocons who take FDR's "walk softly and

    carry a big stick" to an allout ridiculous literal interpretation.

    Hucks' ad pretty much sums up-by having Chuck Norris as an endorsement-that even if you don't WANT to vote for Huck-Chuck is gonna MAKE you vote for him.

    Does anyone else see any paralells here with the current wimpy neocons, victimized by some hatred or bigotry of someone-to try to make thier own biases public mainstream thinking. IOW-"I'm a wimp-so I need a badass,guns, or the military to do my fighting for me."

    The problem is that the public is aware by now-that these supposed comic-book heroes have no kryptonite. We have 2 badly managed wars, the economy, the scandals, the corporate defense scandals,quadruple oil prices, Katrina to rightly summarize what the past 7 years is really about.

    That is, that the neocons are no more than wannabe badasses dressed up in tights and a superhero costume at a comicbook convention-minus the kryponite.

    They are nothing more than mytholigical creations of their own minds.

  • @RMP

    Please assure me that it will all be worth it.~RMP

    I wish I could be more reassuring, but I have days that it’s just hard to keep at all positive – there’s just so much stupidity in our media and our political discourse that being a news junkie has become hazardous to my health.

    The best I can do for the moment is this headline that has the words:

    “Rudy drops fast”…..

    http://tinyurl.com/27qpbu

  • @IngSoc

    It’s not just Iran that is interested in developing nuclear power. The New York Times is reporting that nearly a dozen countries in that region are looking at drawing up nuclear plans for “the day when the flow of oil dries up.”

    ”The newly interested states include Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen and the seven sheikdoms of the United Arab Emirates — Abu Dhabi, Ajman, Dubai, Al Fujayrah, Ras al Khaymah, Sharjah, and Umm al Qaywayn…

    They generally ask what they need to do for the introduction of power,” said R. Ian Facer, a nuclear power engineer who works for the I.A.E.A. at its Vienna headquarters. The agency teaches the basics of nuclear energy. In exchange, states must undergo periodic inspections to make sure their civilian programs have no military spinoffs.”

    The administration’s response to Iran’s desire for this technology is to compare them to Nazis and call their leader next “Hitler” – it looks like there is a whole line of “Hitlers” in our future.

    That’s why we need a coherent policy on this topic. So far, we’ve not got much beyond “bomb, bomb, bomb” lyrics that don’t even address the real issue.

    http://tinyurl.com/3agefb

  • DcLaw1- I hit the hay early.

    I'd never butter-up to a lawyer, but I agree with you at 3:07!

    No worry, and know I'd never retain you Dc Layers, but before I hit the hay-sack, I agree, and I'm glad you are in DC...

  • Stream of Consciousness v. Spontaneous Prose

    I know this is pedantic but bear with me. Stream of Consciousness is not when you type off the top of your head, which is what most people mean when they use it. That is called spontaneous prose. It was famously used by the beat writers.

    Stream of consciousness on the other hand is writing that is supposed to mimic internal thought. It is usually labored over and heavily edited and re-edited. A prime example is James Joyce's Ulysses and Virginia Woolf's novels.

    Anyway, that's the difference. I've mixed them up myself and just about everyone on the planet uses stream of consciousness when they mean spontaneous prose.

  • @ _zack_

    True, we do have an obsessive focus on Iran; there is definitely more to it than nuclear power or nuclear weapons. Do you suppose it has something to do with the fact that they threw off our puppet dictator thirty years ago? :)

    I was simply pointing out that there are very valid reasons for the US government (given how it works and whose interests it most often represents) not wanting an actor such as Iran, whose government owes nothing to the West and in particular is implacably hostile to Western intrusion in the region, to have nuclear power. Iran is a maverick, whereas the others "play well" with the West, for the most part.

  • Ghouliani promotes virtual fence

    He’s going to end illegal entry from our southern border in just three years. Maybe he’ll promise to build a virtual fence around his campaign staff and the WH so his and the Busheviks vile promises and illegal actions will stop.

    http://tinyurl.com/yofac7`

  • @IngSoc

    Iran is a maverick, whereas the others "play well" with the West, for the most part.

    Certainly, deposing “our” Shah has something to do with it, but when you read PNAC it’s quite clear that Iran just happens to be on their “to do” list.

    Certainly, Saudi Arabia and to a lesser extent, Egypt have “played well” with what U.S. administrations have desired.

    Yet, notice that both of them are on Podhoretz’s list of governments he wants overthrown “by force if necessary.”

    People like him are looking for excuses for more war, and they’re not trying to hide it. If the Podhoretzes of the world are marginalized – sent back to think tanks that no one takes seriously, then we can start dealing with even “maverick” nations.

    But we really need to lose the “crazy” first, though.

  • @ IngSoc

    Iran has every right to have nuclear power whether we like how they act or not. The present Bushevik and Ghouliani and other Repug candidate’s attitude toward Iran is only increasing the odds that Iran will act in ways we don’t like. If you treat someone as a child they will tend to act like a child. If you treat someone as an adult, the will tend to act as an adult.

    Our childish, aggressive policy will only create more problems, not solve them. And then we get some Dem candidates who get upset when Obama says a president should negotiate directly and want the U.S. to keep insisting that until you do everything we ask, we will not negotiate. This childish, authoritarian attitude is as silly as our present “leadership.”