Letters to the Editor
-
@UN Autism (OT)
Well, the off-topic tangents often end up being the most interesting. I intend to carpe diem. I have an interest in the nature of intelligence, consciousness and the learning process. As someone who pretty much doesn't know anything about the subject of autism (other than the usual background noise), I figure that we don't really know much about the internals of ourselves, our mental states, how we learn, function in groups, all that stuff that the brain automagically acquires through the learning process of interacting with the world. So I'm not suprised that when we encounter someone whose internals are markedly different than ours, we end up somewhat clueless. And there's really a lot more variation in the "normal" population than is normally considered.
The unschooling sounds radical, I would say gnostic in nature. It would be interesting to be in an educational process where learning to think was the goal and not a mere side effect. The survival advantages of regimented schooling is that you can build large social pyramids off them and fend off rival groups. Dumb and unquestioning may be a social survivial trait. Can unschoolers form large enough groups to be viable? A weird question, but I always thought the gnostics didn't make it because it was hard to be a gnostic and not easily transmitted, where the rivals had a few simple rules that were easy to follow.
Thanks for the excellent conversation! I have to depart, but I'll be around.
-
ljwalker53 Quick point and then I'm outta here!
As fair as bud nipping goes, I think you picked the wrong contests. I'll add another:
Reagan trashed Ford till the convention in '76 Carter won
Dems lost in 1980
Dems lost again (huge) in 1984.
I personally think the current contest should continue, but I'm also aware that the survivor could acquire mortal wounds. If you look at polls now, McCain is soaring and both Obama and Hillary aren't doing so great. The good news is that it is only March. But I tend to think of '80 and '84 as examples of what not to do, if you are a democrat.
P.S. Gary Hart's flame was Donna Rice (thank you google)
-
@ljwalker53
um. .. didn't the Democrats lose in 1980 and 1984 and didn't the changes to our country that began under Reagan affect everything that came after to where our country is in a pretty perilous place right now?
I'm going to bed and likely not coming back, so I'm not going to bother continuing to debate this.
She needs to be stopped. Not just because I want to see Obama protected, although that would certainly help our Democratic nominee get elected in November.
This country has major challenges and there is a fierce urgency of now. Obama was right on that, as on many other things. Yes, I recognize he is a human and a politician, I've read far too much to think anything otherwise. I don't need you to enlighten me, I am a responsible, thinking, adult.
Interesting the condescending attitude paralleling Clinton's condescending, patronizing attitude towards Obama.
Reading Carl Bernstein's op-ed just now gives me another insight. There is a consistent core to Barack, a core of deep, calm, self-confidence that Hillary lacks. The condescension and patronizing is likely a reflection of some deep-seated insecurities. Yes, this is personality politics but it is where we have been driven by your candidate.
-
@ unschooler: No Disrespect Meant
Interesting the condescending attitude paralleling Clinton's condescending, patronizing attitude towards Obama.
Really! I wasn't being "condescending." I was trying to point out that what you say/see as the norm isn't necessarily that. And I didn't intend to patronize. Look, some of us in here HAVE been around. And sometimes I DO get frustrated when I see comments like yours, so I reply from my perspective.
I am sorry that you see us as an extension of what you believe to be Hillary Clinton. And no amount of time or history about who she really is will make a difference to you; I understand that. But I really think it's dangerous to push people out of a process, because it fulfills the lowest common denominator in thinking and acting. IMO that isn't what our democracy is about. This is all I was trying to point out. I didn't think I took pot-shots at you; I don't appreciate the pot-shots at me!
-
Iraq heats up. Clinton polls down.
Some of you noted that Walsh has had a tendency to, well, "misspeak" when describing Salon's coverage of the candidates. I just want to quote a paragraph from her previous blog entry on Clinton's war vote:
"Here's the thing: Many of us -- a small but not silent majority -- knew enough not to take the president at his word. Many of us knew he was determined to go to war, alone if necessary."
I would like to see Walsh's evidence that Bush gave his word that he would not attack Iraq alone (or with his small coalition). He did say he would go to the UN, but when did he say that the UN would limit US options? The war resolution, in fact, meant just the opposite: it allowed Bush (Powell) to go to the UN and say "with or without you." The issue was not that Bush broke his word!
Similarly, I find Walsh's "small majority" estimate of people who knew Bush was "determined to go to war" entirely suspect. A vast majority assumed we were going to war. Some people opposed the war. Many more people supported it; people like Clinton.
Walsh is helping Clinton perpetuate falsehoods about her involvement in the Iraq war, just as Salon has ignored and enabled Clinton's lies about her involvement (or lack thereof) in the Bosnian conflict.
One of the problems for Democrats caused by Clinton's mendacity on war questions is the real possibility of trouble in Iraq this spring and summer even as the primary season drags on in the states. Up until now, the primaries have coincides with a decrease in violence in Iraq following the surge.
You might say that one of the biggest primary battles of the moment is not in Pennsylvania, but in Basra. Not between Clinton and Obama, but between the Iraqi Army and the Mahdi Army. If the Iraqis cannot go it alone, there will be calls for more US troops, including votes in the US senate. Even if US troops are not sent to support the Iraqis in Basra, there are signs of worsening security in Baghdad (including missile attacks into the Green Zone!). Should more troops be sent to hold the gains of the surge?
Who will people trust to make vote correctly? A liar like Clinton? Who do you trust to report on the votes in the context of the political campaign? Salon?
It's no surprise that Obama has regained points in the polls while Clinton has lost her standing. Obama's honesty on the war trumps not only Clinton's dishonesty on the war, but Clinton's attempt to turn media attention to "issues" like a religious test on Obama's fitness to be President and covert race-baiting. Democrats should wake up and realize that Clinton's efforts reflect poorly not only on her fitness to serve, they reflect badly on Democrats. They also need need to realize that Clinton's approach is an impediment to a realistic approach to Iraq, where tough decisions need to be made with the trust of the American people.