Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
Re: Democrats' call: Avenge 2000, by Adam C. Smith, Dec. 7.
I take issue with Adam Smith's dim view of the state Democratic Party convention. Obviously, one cannot be in two places at one time, therefore, I will not judge too harshly.
Perhaps from where Smith stood, he heard a lot of Bush bashing. From where I stood, it sounded more like factual criticisms about the Bush years and the Bush administration. I would contend that bashings are in the more personal "guy looks like a chimp and can't speak worth a damn" form (now, that is bashing). However, I did not really hear any of that.
Are we supposed to go to our convention and talk about what a wonderful job GW has managed to do? Are we to talk in nice tones about the hundreds of youngsters who have died for an unnecessary, improperly timed war on Iraq? Are we to praise Bush for using the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, to justify a war in Iraq? Are we not allowed to even mention the debacle of 2000? We are told we need to get over it. But remember what happens if one forgets the past.
I think that it is important to move on, and we are. But I also think it would be missing a golden opportunity not to use the 2000 election as an energizer. The Republicans would probably do the same thing. It was very important for the candidates to bring up the Diebold-Bush connection. Smith contends that we are out for revenge. Were not the Republicans, during the entire Clinton reign, out for revenge?
Re: Democrats' call: Avenge 2000.
I found the headline quite amusing. If I'm not mistaken, wasn't revenge for 2000 the same strategy that catapulted Democratic candidate for governor Bill McBride into obscurity?
That said, I note the Democrats do not say, "Vote for us because we're more honest." They do not say, "Vote for us because we have better ideas for the economy." They do not say, "Vote for us because we can do a better job in the war on terror."
No, revenge for 2000 is their rallying cry. How sad.
Re: Democrats' call: Avenge 2000.
The delegates seem to be living in a dream world, divorced from reality. They claim that Al Gore really won the 2000 election? They need to widen their circle of correspondents.
Didn't a coalition of various liberal press organizations conduct one or two recounts well after the election and conclude that George W. Bush really did win in Florida? I know there was a lot of ballyhoo about a media group trying to prove once and for all that Bush lost, but their counts kept coming up with the result that Bush really did win Florida, albeit by a slim margin that was within the probable statistical error of the process.
The 2000 election in Florida - and in the United States as a whole - was so close that by all the rules of statistics, it was a tie. The Electoral College provided a winner, just as it was supposed to do in cases like that.
The count and recounts in Florida were adjudicated by the courts, and the votes of the Florida Supreme Court as well as the U.S. Supreme Court were politically inspired and based on faulty reasoning or law: equal fault to both sides.
The election is long over; Bush won. Get over it! The Republicans followed Florida state laws regarding the counts. The worst cases of improperly marked ballots were those precincts under complete Democratic control.
I'm not going to vote for Bush - mainly over religious problems - but I'm not going to vote for any Democrat who can't understand simple facts, either. That weekend in Lake Buena Vista was an exercise in stupidity!
Re: Democrats' call: Avenge 2000.
Would somebody stand up and explain something to me - why the entire media, even journalists as fair and unbiased as Adam Smith, fall into the trap of the Republican propaganda machine and call the flow of negative information unleashed by George W. Bush's cohorts merely "attacks" or "criticism" but label every negative opinion expressed by Democrats "bashing"?
Why, after mentioning several platforms shared by all the candidates - platforms reflecting the Democrats' positive vision of America... "expanded access to health care, a foreign policy that doesn't antagonize allies, more emphasis on alternative fuels and tax policies that help middle-class Americans and small businesses" - why does Adam Smith feel compelled to add, almost like an apology for having praised the Democrats, "Most of the day, though, was about bashing Bush"?
Since when is condemning a policy, even with vigorous words, negative? And how can we express our own positive views, if not with comparisons, by exposing the negative actions of the other side? Despite former U.S. Rep. Carrie Meek's out-of-line contention about a stolen election - words reflecting only her marginal opinions and quickly propagated by the Republicans - we are not out for revenge. We are out for justice.
Re: As a philosopher, he draws a blank, George Will's column on Howard Dean, Dec. 7.
Will, who seems unacquainted with journalistic integrity, rather absurdly charges former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a medical doctor, with intellectual shallowness. With deliberate twisting of Dean's words, and some good old right-wing mythmaking, Will indeed crafts a bleak picture of Dean's intellectual prowess.
It's too bad that since Iraq, readers are a little more informed on the Republican propaganda machine. We've broken the code; and Will, although a gifted practitioner of the dark art, fools only the uninformed and cheers only the true believer.
My favorite part is when Will derides Dean's choice of Lao-Tse as his favorite philosopher, as evidence of Dean's intellectual shallowness. Will doesn't bother to inform the reader that Lao-Tse is the founder of Taoism, one of the pillars of Eastern thought. Shallow indeed.
I encourage readers to bypass propaganda ministers like Will, and learn about Gov. Dean directly. Listen to the man speak or read about him at www.deanforamerica .com. If you come away with the same opinion as George F. Will, then so be it. But if you come away with an eerie sense that the spirit of the Founding Fathers somehow animates Gov. Dean, then perhaps you'll understand my favorite Lao-Tse quote: "What the caterpillar calls the end, the rest of the world calls a butterfly."
Re: Much ado about mulch mountain, Dec. 7.
In this story, a Kentucky woman is quoted as saying that wood particles from the mulch plant near her home contribute to her asthma.
I don't suppose it ever occurred to this lady that the cigarette burning in her hand might just have something to do with her respiratory ailment?
Re: Uninsured a risk to public health, by Lisa Greene, Dec. 7.
The article quotes Dr. Anthony Iton as saying, "SARS would be no different. . . . An uninsured resident is going to think this is a cold and delay seeking care as long as possible until they become very, very ill."
One could conclude from this statement that uninsured people don't know what SARS is or how dangerous it can be. What leads Iton to think that those who don't have insurance are also ignorant of SARS?
Many of those with no insurance are working in full time jobs and they cannot afford the exorbitant cost of buying insurance on their own. They are paying attention to health issues, and should a SARS outbreak happen here, you can be sure they'll show up at emergency rooms or health clinics at the first hint of a cough or fever because they are terrified of being out of work or having to spend time in a hospital and not being able to afford it.
Thank you for the return of Opus. I have long missed his bizarre and demented antics. A brilliant coup!
I was looking forward to seeing Opus again in the comics, until I did. It's like having your favorite uncle go away for a long time and come back a self-centered jerk! A better use of that much cartoon space would be advertisements!