Letters to the Editor
-
@ShawnWM i had to look back to see when i mentioned you - ordinarily i would be too fearful
truly, you are the only one i would put up against maureen - but i see you ask for her hand! (sadly, for who? she is - but left a teaser that if you knew her maiden name we'd be even more incensed (forgot the real word) what could it be? torqumada? mussolini? (i picked catholics)) anyway, i found that you were the ONLY male who is a Clinton supporter (can this be true?) no WONDER any (besides viet vets like payne) would quail on getting into confrontation. anyhow you are being very gentlemanly. your take is - and correct me if i'm wrong - the democrats MUST win this election and you see Obama as having a lesser chance than others - my guess? you would have originally picked Edwards or Richardson, Biden or Dodd but when they dropped out, it became crucial to stop this (as you see it) loser from promoting McCain into office. of COURSE we differ! why else would we be arguing? i think Obama will win (unless he loses all the reagan democrats by the thousand cuts of hillary) and make america far better than it is or would be under clinton. but yes, we will have to wait and find out by actual events not fantasies.
-
****
I am not married Shawn. But I am so *modern,* that I am not
sure I would ever get married.
As for Maureen, I like her too (but not in "that" way).
And I am so happy she is Maureen O'Donnell and not Maureen Dowd, for I've heard many may consider Maureen Dowd a cause and effect herself of today's superficial socio-political corrosion. What might otherwise be called clever idiocy that pays financially and impoverishes integrity.
*Truly Goodnight* -
*Best*
-
@dolores Flower Back to the Umbrella
The idea is that if we guarantee those countries protection - they won't fear they need to develop a nuclear arsenal to protect themselves.
The irony here, is that some of the countries feel they need nukes to protect themselves from us. The USofA is not exactly popular in the world. We're not exactly trusted:
http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/2706.cfm
The umbrella to me seems like a case of Imperial overreach. We don't have the cash or the troops. Any viable security guarantee will include conventional as well as nuclear support. Other powers are not going to sit back and let this happen in a vacuum. Look at how Russia is already reacting to expanding NATO. China will also deal itself in. Look at how Hugo Chavez is making deals with China and how we are working with Colombia. We also have to ask, do we really, really want to support regimes like Yemen, and Saudi Arabia? They really like feminists there. Do the Arabs really want us around?
I haven't really seen this issue getting much traction: Here's the search I did:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=clinton+umbrella
Presumably, the only difference between what Clinton said this week and the neocons have said is the overt idea of regime change.
The flipside is that the US probably has a lot of national security interests and handshake style deals in place with countries like the UAE , Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. Turning those handshakes into treaties is a whole other ball of wax though.
-
Be careful what you wish for…….
Every time I hear an Obama fan proudly proclaim how many “young voters” he has awakened from their slumber and brought into the system, I feel a sense of dread in the unforeseen consequences that it portends. Like a bunch of Bobbin Heads, these Obama acolytes, including the useful idiot politicians, sever the nerves in their necks nodding in agreement for this great accomplishment.
Here are a few examples of the people who will determine our next president:
1. Three-quarters (74%) believe English is the most commonly spoken native language in the world. (it's Chinese)
2. Half or fewer of young men and women 18-24 can't identify the states of New York or Ohio on a map
3. Six in ten (63%) cannot find Iraq or Saudi Arabia on a map of the Middle East, while three-quarters (75%) cannot find Iran or Israel. In fact, 44% cannot find even one of these four countries
4. Recent study showed that more than half the graduates from four-year universities couldn't understand what they were reading at a basic level.
5. It's appalling -- it's really astounding," said Michael Gorman, president of the American Library Association and a librarian at California State University at Fresno. "Only 31 percent of college graduates can read a complex book and extrapolate from it.
6. Only 41 percent of graduate students tested in 2003 could be classified as "proficient" in prose -- reading and understanding information in short texts.
7. More than 56 per cent of college graduates can't calculate the change from $3 after buying a bowl of soup for 60 cents and a sandwich for $1.95.
8. “BY ALMOST ANY MEASURMENT YOU CAN NAME, WE HAVE BEEN TURNING OUT STUDENTS AT THE ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE, HIGH SCHOOL, AND COLLEGE LEVELS WHO ARE MANIFESTLY UNFIT TO FUNCTION EFFECTIVELY IN SOCIETY."
It's not all bad news, however. In a recent test, a picture of a large body of water was depicted, surrounded by vast areas of desert. Five dots (representing cities) were shown, one next to the water, four in the desert.
The question was, "which dot was most likely to be a Port city?"
75% got the answer right. I wonder who the other 25% will be voting for.
-
sugarman/deeper
Thanks, sugarman. blind sow, acorn. you're right, of course, deeper, in that most of what I do i spew- it's vent, and directed at those I believe are doing their utmost to ruin what remains of our country- a country I love well enough to have tolerated four years of military service during Vietnam. I do post earnest, and, I hope, reasonably well presented arguments. It's like talking to a cloud of hydrogen sulphide. Shawn the Pawn is an irredeemable dick (I speak here only of the on-line personality, which may or may not bear much resemblance to the actual person. I know this since what I say here, for the most part, is so far removed from my normal approach to things as to be beyond bipolar.) So, in this cyber playpen, I suffer fools not at all, even though, in doing so, I play the fool to a fair extent myself. whether or not you read it- well, something could matter less, but I'd have a hard time saying what it might be. You are far more erudite than shawnie boy or fattexasgirl or the rest of the trolls "for" Hillary. I doubt they're democrats at all, if the party has any ideological cohesion (not unanimity, but a grundnorm, a shared sense of purpose). They're idiots. You are not. If you consider me one, you have grounds, but I don't care. This is not real life. It's not even a real forum. It's as real as the "debate" last Wednesday.