Opinion: You hate us. Right now, you hate us
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
Readers give us the business for recent online articles. All in Original Spelling:
About John Yoo and Bruce Ackerman’s Dust-Up on war powers, Tony Green of Gualala writes:
I join Yoo and Ackerman in debating the war making powers issue. Ackerman is right to point out that the War Powers Resolution of 1973, “maintains the (founding) father’s commitment to checks and balances” with respect to the President’s power to make war. However, both Ackerman and Yoo find fault with the War Powers Resolution. Yoo considers the Resolution unconstitutional. Ackerman acknowledges “deficiencies” in the Resolution, but says “this is not the moment” to correct those “deficiencies.” Why not? The Resolution was written in response to President Nixon’s abuse of power in the Viet Nam War. Why not correct the “deficiencies” now, in response to President Bush’s abuse of power during the current war in Iraq? To negate the Constitutionality issue, we should amend the Constitution to incorporate provisions of an updated War Powers Resolution. This will take considerable time and effort, but what could be more important?
On Robert Greene’s ‘Frivolous balloteering?’ San Diego’s Bill Decker writes:
The issue, while well explained in Robert Greene’s editorial, can be cast in simpler terms: our so-called representatives are too busy either going on overseas junkets or tirelessly working to get re-elected, so they have abdicated their true responsibilities back to the voters. But why bother spending money on representative salaries if every issue comes back to us anyway? How about this – every ballot resolution results in a step-down in representative salaries. Pass that rule and you can bet these important issues will start to be debated by the people who are supposed to do just that.
Plenty of readers responded to Martha Lauzen’s Blowback feature about Jonah Goldberg and Rosie O’Donnell. Says John Johnson of Encino:
Martha Lauzen’s retort to Jonah Goldberg’s criticism of Rosie O’Donnell ends with ‘You go, girl!’ I agree. She definitely should go. But for different reasons than Goldberg’s more politically inspired remarks. O’Donnell’s comments about 9/11 have been grotesquely uninformed, irresponsible, and highly inflammatory. She began her career as a stand-up comedienne and, while she may be sitting down now, she’s still doing her stand-up act. Barbara Walters brought O’Donnell to The View for one reason: her ‘unruly’ mouth. She makes outrageous, incendiary statements, gets free press coverage, while re-inventing herself as the ‘car wreck’ of day-time television and reducing viewers to rubberneckers on the highway. Personally, I could care less if she’s liberal or conservative. She is an angry, polarizing influence who excels at dumbing down the whole culture. But I suppose that’s the price Walters and ABC were willing to pay to keep the show on the air.
Says Dana Strunk of Riverside County:
I could not disagree more with Martha Lauzen’s view of Rosie O’Donnell. The show is anything but ‘serious minded’ since O’Donnell’s debut. It is not simply because O’Donnell spouts off uninformed opinions on a regular basis (the latest...9/11 conspiracy), it is also because she is a rude, overbearing presence who berates and interrupts those who dare disagree with her. Her intolerance knows no limits. Every time I hear O’Donnell pontificate, I wonder where all the smart women have gone.
RH of Pine Ariz. puts in:
Your approach and explanation of your views are clearly evidence that Rosie O’Donnell is the very ‘whacko’ that Gpldberg implied. When Ms. O’Donnell starts stating her views in a rational and less shrill manner as you have done, then perhaps she might get the respect for her views she is looking for. Until then, she will continue to be viewed by mainstrteet America as another Hollyweird crackpot, and deservidly so.
Finally Charles H. Sawders, who provides no address, comments on senior editorial writer Michael McGough, and since he doesn’t refer to any particular story, we like to believe he’s expressing general disdain for McGough as a human being:
Is he really the best you can do? A man so arrogant that he ridicules basic priniciples of liberty. A man who cannot recognize the superiority of thought from men much smarter than he. Men like Jefferson, Mason, Madison, Hamilton, Washington, Adams, et.al. Pay more or start proofreading his columns. One will get you a better man in his place the other will expose him for the empty suit he is.