To the Editor:
To the Editor:
Jan. 1, 2001
In 2001 the mainstream press in the United States will discover a reversal, declaring that “liberals” have suddenly decided they want more power for local and state governments rather than for Washington. Right-wing pundits will describe this as hypocrisy and as a gross distortion of their own alleged preference for anarchy. “Opposing government interference at the federal level does not mean we want it at the local level,” they will tell each other.
We’re getting close to presidential election time, and many people are anxiously trying to find out what they’ll watch on TV while they skip bothering to vote. I hardly blame them. Neither major party candidate is seriously proposing to address our campaign-funding system of legalized bribery, the rapidly expanding wealth gap between the few at the top and the rest of us, the bloated military budget three times the size of all our supposed enemies’ combined, our deteriorating
The protest movement growing around global exploitation of workers and the environment is the most exciting thing of its kind Americans, and some others, have seen in over 30 years, and – therefore – in my life time. But it could very easily be much more powerful than it is. If it were organized into strategic nonviolent protests to the complete exclusion of any little groups of stone-throwers, the media would be forced to cover some other aspect of it than the little groups of stone-throwers.
I spent Memorial Day 2001 reading the first of the popular series of “Harry Potter” children’s books. I also caught some of the usual blurbs on the news about a president, whose family’s wealth got him out of going to war, honoring those who had gone off to murder people of other nationalities — whether by following the “proper rules” of war or by slitting the throats of women and children (the way one American war hero did in an incident that hit the
Published at www.loper.org/~george
Letters to the Editor: David Swanson Responds to Steven Stern on the Imposition of a ‘Living Wage’
Professor Stern, like most opponents of wage standards, believes the answers can all be found in an intro to economics course. And, like most opponents of wage standards, he believes proponents have their hearts in the right place but are just remarkably ignorant.
When great numbers of people of all levels of academic achievement hold a view
13 Aug. 2001
Sent to the Washington Post (not published)
To the Editor
[Re. “Why Amnesty is the Wrong Way to Go,” Aug. 12, 1B]
Peter Skerry maintains that amnesty is the wrong way to go, but does not explain what destination he is trying to arrive at.
He begins by disputing the idea that illegal immigrants live in fear of deportation and consequently are exploited by employers. His evidence? A group of illegal immigrants protesting mistreatment by an employer, an illegal immigrant
Printed in Washington Post Magazine, Sept 30, 2001
Since I am an atheist, I would certainly rather have people in general be indifferent to atheists than hostile, but I would prefer a more engaged approach from journalists. Stephen Bates’s “The Unfaithful” [July 29] does not touch on why some theists consider it a matter of utmost importance that the world acquire more theism, or why some atheists believe the opposite with equal passion.
I see theism as offering a weak comfort
To the Editor:
Oct. 11, 2001
Why they hate us was the right question, but your answers leave me unsatisfied. You blame their religion, but most religions claim that death isn’t really death, that it’s a door to paradise. Most believers do not believe strongly enough to put their lives at risk for a cause, but the strength of the belief does not explain why the cause involved hatred of Americans.
Your explanation seems to be that arabs have long failed to appreciate the glories
Dec. 27, 2001
My initial reaction to the disaster of September 11, 2001, (See below), included the assumption that out of all that horror at least one good thing was bound to come, that it couldn’t possibly be avoided.
Namely, I was sure that our federal government would have to recognize that what killed all those people could not have been stopped by a bigger military or a military in outer space. I honestly had no doubt that, since American buildings had been destroyed with pocketknives,