Letters to the Editor
-
Amazing!
shooter puts up a thoughtful interesting post. It just happens to have a big fat zit in the middle of it waiting to be popped. I, of course refer to: in that they reflected New Hampshire resident views, but unpolled Out of State voters changed the vote results. It's why ID cards are needed. Time will tell.
I'm not among those who insist the Diebold rules the planet. But that was just plain silly.
-
Hillary will not be VP on Obama's ticket because she is white and a woman.She leverages her white female privledges....
In America's pecking order as a white female of privledge HRC could never sacrifice her agenda for the greater good. White females in part because of thier inherent whiteness and thier history of riding on the coatails of white males, have always used this vicarious racial power to leverage themselves at the expense of all others especially Blacks.
HRC as a privledged white woman has an entitlement mindset with regard to Blacks, she feels we owe her ... Hillary had the audacity to toss MLK under the bus to remind Black folks that at the end of the day LBG freed our Black asses . LBG of course was a southern white male like her husband.
White feminist's never connected with Black woman becuase of this surrogate white male demeanor they displayed when they interact with Black woman. Black woman are often victimized twice by white feminists with thier sexism and racism towards them.
Hillary does not have the courage to step back for the country and share power with Obama, she is a reflection and a parrot of her surrogate white male role model who of course rejects any degree of parity and equality with non-whites.
Only a white woman playing the gender card like Hillary would have the audacity to slamm MLK knowing the good negro Obama would not strike back. I gues she knew as a white famale since Obama's mother is white like her she could leverage herself to the degree that she has..
-
@Kitt
I don't disagree that polling in some instances can be useful and accurate, and it might even be true in the political process. Try as a I might, however, I can't see its value when it comes to the political process. There really is no valid reason to know whether or not a candidate is viable; in fact, I can think of a dozen real world reasons why we should never take such a thing into consideration. Polls told us for many of the first years of the gulf war that strong majorities supported our involvement there. I'll never believe that's true, nor do I believe that Bush won the presidential race in 2004. I believe he lost it, that his victory was invalid; and I believe the reason was that a majority of people did not support his policies.
In the interest of veracity, I never said that I believed polling process was 'bullshit' or that questions were inherently framed that way. I don't think that's the problem. Again, my main issue is with the sample group and the cost-cutting, corner-shaving ways it is determined, to the detriment of our political process.
-
It's The Right-Wing PR Machine, Stupid
Bravo, Glenn! Media pundits love the drama that their storylines create. Whether they are true or not is immaterial, so long as their ratings remain high. And what a huge disservice that is to democracy.
Kudos, too, for pointing out that MSM is about as disconnected from reality as GWB is.
Let's not forget, though, that just two or three corporate conglomerates own 'the media' thereby reducing it to nothing more than a dog and pony show to prop up right-wing Republican ideals and storylines.
-
@Dirgio (Uncertainty Principle)
Let us suppose that you are the batter in a baseball game. The pitch comes, and your job is to track the ball: determine exactly where it is and where it is going before it gets to you so that you can hit it. You do not do your job perfectly in general, and your are likely to say "This is not easy, I am not good enough to do this perfectly." You are not likely to say (and would be incorrect if you said) "The universe will not let me do my job."
However, if you tried to track really small things, you would find through careful experimentation and analysis that the universe really is the problem in this case. There are limitations to how accurately you can know simultaneously where something is and where it is going. Here are two extreme views of this situation:
1. Everything does have a precise location and speed, even on a very small scale. But we cannot communicate the information accurately.
2. Simultaneous knowledge of position and velocity is a concept we have because it is so close to correct on our natural scale of things that it works essentially perfectly for baseball. But the concept need have no meaning outside its realm of verified applicability, and it is up to us to figure out how the world really works.
View 1 is dead wrong; it took a few decades to really show this, but that question was settled some time ago. View 2 is reasonable for most things. But I would hesitate to say it is perfectly true. Physics does not really provide us with mental pictures of how things work; it allows us to predict the results of observations.
There is a lot more that could be said, but this is enough for now.
-
Want to do something about the wrong kind of Dems
From MoveOn.org:
They're a problem. Democrats in Congress who vote with President Bush on the war. Who take checks from lobbyists. Who side with corporations instead of voters.
It's not enough just to fight Republicans— progressives need to make sure the Democrats we elect are on our side too.
Right now, in Maryland's 4th congressional district election, we have a great opportunity to replace a right-wing Democrat with a new progressive champion—and remind the rest of the Democrats in Congress that at the end of the day, the voters call the shots.
Rep. Al Wynn, the incumbent, loads up on corporate cash,1 and has voted with the President again and again—including his vote to authorize the war in Iraq. Donna Edwards, the challenger, is a true fighting progressive who will go to Washington and take on the establishment.
MoveOn members who live in the district voted overwhelmingly to endorse Donna Edwards in the Democratic primary, and they've asked for our help.
Can you contribute $25 to help Donna Edwards win, and put all the other right-wing Democrats on notice?
https://pol.moveon.org/give/jan08.html?id=11883-8383510-EHxUVz&t=3