[From 1/27/08, about Barack Obama's South Carolina primary victory]
To the editor:
The Enquirer’s January 27 headline regarding Barack Obama’s victory in the South Carolina primary (“Black vote key in primary win”) was a bit misleading. In fact, about the same percentage of white voters cast their ballots for Obama as for Clinton and Edwards. Clinton and Obama received an equal number of votes from white men, and more than half of non-black voters under age 30 went for him.
I don’t recall a similar headline (“Middle-aged white women in sensible shoes push Hillary over the top,” maybe?) when Clinton won in New Hampshire.
This was not a “black” victory for Obama. Americans from all demographic groups are responding to him. The candidate with the more limited demographic appeal is clearly Hillary Clinton, who admittedly seems to have the aging female boomer vote sewn up.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Canada, Torture, and the U.S.
[From 1/18/08, about Canada's placement of the U.S. on a list of countries that practice torture.]
To the editor:
This week comes the heartbreaking news that Canada has placed the United States on a watch list—a list that includes China, Iran, and Syria—for being a country that practices torture.
How many times must it be repeated: Waterboarding suspected terrorists does not provide credible information. People will say anything to stop being tortured. And perhaps even more importantly, the U.S. cannot win the war on terror all alone. We need our friends. Unfortunately, our use of torture has begun to jeopardize the cooperation of other countries in intelligence gathering and similar activities—thus making the United States more vulnerable to a terrorist attack. Simply saying “to hell with the rest of the world” is not a valid option. Allies are absolutely essential in combating a problem like terrorism.
What a disgrace. If we’ve lost the support of Canada—one of our closest allies—then we’ve fallen so far it will be hard for us to regain our standing in the world.
To the editor:
This week comes the heartbreaking news that Canada has placed the United States on a watch list—a list that includes China, Iran, and Syria—for being a country that practices torture.
How many times must it be repeated: Waterboarding suspected terrorists does not provide credible information. People will say anything to stop being tortured. And perhaps even more importantly, the U.S. cannot win the war on terror all alone. We need our friends. Unfortunately, our use of torture has begun to jeopardize the cooperation of other countries in intelligence gathering and similar activities—thus making the United States more vulnerable to a terrorist attack. Simply saying “to hell with the rest of the world” is not a valid option. Allies are absolutely essential in combating a problem like terrorism.
What a disgrace. If we’ve lost the support of Canada—one of our closest allies—then we’ve fallen so far it will be hard for us to regain our standing in the world.
About "the surge" in Iraq
[From 1/15/08, in response to a William Kristol column about the success of the surge in Iraq.]
To the editor:
While William Kristol and his fellow neocons crow about how the stupid Democrats got it wrong about the surge in Iraq, I note that they offer no timetable for . . . well, for anything.
Meanwhile, according to the January 15 New York Times, Iraq’s defense minister has said that his nation will be unable to take full responsibility for its internal security until 2012 and unable to defend its own borders from external threat until at least 2018.
The promise that U.S. troops can withdraw once “order is restored” in Iraq—once peddled by the neocons—has now been turned on its head. In fact, the reverse is true: The more calm there is, says the Kristol crowd, the more Iraq can be part of an American empire in the Middle East. So why withdraw at all?
Kristol and the neocons appear to support a war without end and a permanent occupation of Iraq. John McCain has been saying on the campaign trail that the American people would accept U.S. troops remaining in Iraq for a hundred years. Do you support that, Enquirer reader?
To the editor:
While William Kristol and his fellow neocons crow about how the stupid Democrats got it wrong about the surge in Iraq, I note that they offer no timetable for . . . well, for anything.
Meanwhile, according to the January 15 New York Times, Iraq’s defense minister has said that his nation will be unable to take full responsibility for its internal security until 2012 and unable to defend its own borders from external threat until at least 2018.
The promise that U.S. troops can withdraw once “order is restored” in Iraq—once peddled by the neocons—has now been turned on its head. In fact, the reverse is true: The more calm there is, says the Kristol crowd, the more Iraq can be part of an American empire in the Middle East. So why withdraw at all?
Kristol and the neocons appear to support a war without end and a permanent occupation of Iraq. John McCain has been saying on the campaign trail that the American people would accept U.S. troops remaining in Iraq for a hundred years. Do you support that, Enquirer reader?
Comparisons to the Post
[From 1/1/08. My first letter to the Enquirer.]
To the editor:
Over the past few days, the Enquirer has used the following words to describe the Cincinnati Post: independent, feisty, aggressive, competitive.
As a longtime Post subscriber, I hope to see these qualities emulated by my new daily newspaper.
To the editor:
Over the past few days, the Enquirer has used the following words to describe the Cincinnati Post: independent, feisty, aggressive, competitive.
As a longtime Post subscriber, I hope to see these qualities emulated by my new daily newspaper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
