Letters to the Editor
-
@lateagain
Yes, there is a difference between "reductionism" and "simplistic reductionism" in philosphical debate. Admittedly, "simplistic reductionism" is somewhat pejorative. I admire your thoughtfulness and can tell from your posts that your students in Cleveland are lucky to have you.
We have different issues of concern. I distrust Obama, because of my research and the impressions that I garner from what he has done and has not done. I call my concerns "people issues," and he does not measure up to Hillary on those.I also cringe every time he oversimplifies issues and mistates the effects of policy to pander to the fears of voters.
Here is the litmus test for undecided voters --
Dunkin Donuts coffee(Hillary) or Starbucks(Obama)? Senisble, consistent, tried and true or overpriced with atmosphere.
Honestly, a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket seems like a formidable ticket for any Republican to run against. I think both are more promising than John Kerry.
-
This has nothing to do with Farrakhan and everything to do with Zionist lobbyists
This entire issue is not about Farrahkhan's hatemongering.
The entire foundation of the question centered NOT upon Farrakhan's denunciation of other people--whites, Christians, etc. The question centered around "testing" Obama's allegiance to Israel.
The bottom line is that the anti-Muslim and Arab ethnic cleansing policies that are the foundations of Jewish American and AIPAC followers are not on as solid ground with Obama as it is with the Clintons.
Obama's response to the question was perfect. He cannot reject what has not been offered. He was not endorsed. He was simply praised. For being a black man. For being a black leader. For being someone who brings hope. Turning that into an endorsement for antisemitism is the kind of neo-con B.S. that has had the U.S. mired in the Middle East for over 50 years.
Neither Israel nor AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobbyists want a wild card like Obama. They want who they have funded and supported for decades, and those are all of their Israel-supporting-Selling-Out-America-neo-con pals who have destroyed the lives of thousands in the Middle East and in America (Clinton and Bush)
I can just see Zionists drooling over a chance to smear Obama with antisemitism. They have been doing that already--quietly, behind the scenes.
I just hope Americans remember the sons and daughters we have collectively lost and know that they don't need to fight Israel's war, and that their commander-in-chief's allegiance should be to the United States and ONLY to the United States.
Israel, get the F--K out of the picture. The antisemitism whine is so old, it shouldn't be allowed behind a wheel.
This is our election. Go bulldoze some homes in Gaza.
-
Ahh the Liberal Hate is strong with you today
Breathe it in deep, the smell of it.
-
What all the good things Hitler did?
I mean he didn't wake up thinking 'lemme do the most evil things'.....
- Wil Smith
So Wil, you know slavery wasn't ALL bad.
-
Hmm. . .
.I also cringe every time he oversimplifies issues and mistates the effects of policy to pander to the fears of voters.
You mean like Hillary oversimplifying the experience argument or saying the nation would be less secure with Obama as Commander in Chief?
Dunkin Donuts coffee(Hillary) or Starbucks(Obama)? Senisble, consistent, tried and true or overpriced with atmosphere.
Yes, yes Obama supporters are all latte drinking softies. I'm glad to see you can read the Republican talking points. ;)
Kidding aside, which has had a bigger impact on America, Dunkin Donuts or Starbucks? I think any reasonable estimate will conclude that Dunkin Donuts is largely just a case of more of the same (chain fast food) while Starbucks changed the way people lived and thought about coffee shops.
-
@ anon 4:28
Really? You're using completely debunked statements about Will Smith to do... what? What is the point of making comments about Will Smith in this thread? What kind of low, mean-spirited, nasty things are you trying to insinuate? I'm only asking because I'm slow and need trashiness spelled out for me.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gabriel-rotello/will-smith-hitler-and-th_b_78481.html
Get your facts straight. Will Smith won a libel suit against the paper that printed that trash. Like your's, there were no facts behind that statement.
-
@stewsburnmonkey -- Your position -- Obama = Starbucks = Anti-Union
Here is some information on why you may not want to too quickly embrace Starbucks. Also, keep in mind Krispy Kreme tried to put Dunkin out of business and what happened there?? Dunkins hangs in and keeps serving people the same consistent produt... (The Starbucks v. Dunkin debate is little more complex when looking at it organizationally given the way the businesses are structured, and that discussion is too off point to get into here).
Satrbucks Anti-competitive tactics
Some of the methods Starbucks has used to expand and maintain their dominant market position, such as buying out competitors' leases, acquiring independent coffee shops and converting them into Starbucks stores, and clustering several locations in a small geographical area (i.e., saturating the market), have been labeled anti-competitive by critics.[38] For example, Starbucks fueled its initial expansion into the UK market with a buyout of its only major potential competitor (the 49 outlet, UK-based Seattle Coffee Company), then used its capital and influence to obtain prime locations, some of which operated at a financial loss. Critics claimed this was an unfair attempt to drive out small, independent competitors, who could not afford to pay inflated prices for premium real estate.[39]
[edit] Labor disputes
Since 2004, workers at seven Starbucks stores in New York City have joined the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) as the Starbucks Workers Union.[40] According to a Starbucks Union press release, since then, the union membership has begun expanding to Chicago and Maryland.[41] On March 7, 2006, the IWW and Starbucks agreed to a National Labor Relations Board settlement in which three Starbucks workers were granted almost US$2,000 in back wages and two fired employees were offered reinstatement.[42][43][44] According to the Starbucks Union, on November 24, 2006, IWW members picketed Starbucks locations in more than 50 cities around the world in countries including Australia, Canada, Germany, Great Britain and New Zealand, as well as U.S. cities including New York, Chicago, Minneapolis and San Francisco,[45] to protest the firing of five Starbucks Workers Union organizers by Starbucks and to demand their reinstatement.
Some Starbucks baristas in Canada,[46] Australia and New Zealand,[47] and the United States[48] belong to a variety of unions. In 2005, Starbucks paid out US$165,000 to eight employees at its Kent, Washington, roasting plant to settle charges that they had been retaliated against for being pro-union. At the time, the plant workers were represented by the IUOE. Starbucks admitted no wrongdoing in the settlement.[40]
A Starbucks strike occurred in Auckland, New Zealand, on November 23, 2005.[47] Organized by Unite Union, workers sought secure hours, a minimum wage of NZ$12 an hour, and the abolition of youth rates. The company settled with the Union in 2006, resulting in pay increases, increased security of hours, and an improvement in youth rates.[49]
According to Starbucks Chairman Howard Schulz, "If they had faith in me and my motives, they wouldn't need a union." According to The Seattle Times, "The International Union of Operating Engineers Local 286 had trouble with Starbucks at its Kent roasting plant, where the union no longer represents workers".[40]