/* ------------------- begin IP Block script ------------------- Block IP address script Points to php script on blog.racetotheright.com IP addresses are within the script ---------- */ /* -------------------- end IP Block script ------------------- */

Thursday, April 14, 2005

Letters to the Editor--Strib Today

--posted by Tony Garcia on 4/14/2005

Today's installment of "Respond to Letters" is correcting letters from the Star Tribune.

First up is David Nevel of Plymouth.
In the April 11 commentary "A president we might all agree on," Delia M. Rios exalts Abraham Lincoln as "our greatest president for saving the Union."

I fail to see how this is the case. True, Lincoln was president of the United States when it defeated the Confederacy in the Civil War, but that does not make him the savior of the union.

To truly deserve that title, he should have prevented the Civil War from happening in the first place.Sorry David, your grasp of history is woeful (I did not realize the public schools were this bad). Lincoln had ONLY two real choices, neither of them were pretty. First he could have taken the 21st century Democrat approach: Do Nothing. That would have resulted in the successful succession of the Southern states who did not like not getting their way (sounds like Kerry voters who think their vote did not count). This was ultimately bad for the nation because any state would be able to leave when they did not get its way. The other option was to actually fight, for the Confederacy to re-enter the Union and follow the Constitution.

While it could be said that states' rights took a huge hit after the Civil War there really was not another way to save the Nation.

David needs remedial history.

Next up is Charlie Williams, Montevideo, MN
In his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, U.N. Ambassador nominee John Bolton said that he did not try to fire two intelligence officers but only stated that he had lost confidence in them (Star Tribune, April 12).

Why? Because they didn't tell him what he wanted to hear? And it turned out that they were right. You know, sometimes people are just flat out wrong. That is part of being human. Sometimes subordinates may get the right conclusion and have horses*** methodology. That employee ought to have no confidence in them. A corrolary is this: Should Janet Reno be held accountable for 9/11 because she denied a search from being done on Moussaui's laptop. That ONE instance of making a decision...should it condemn her career advancement? No, you have to weigh all of her career.

2 employees happened to be right once and Bolton did not like their answers. Big deal. If they had poor methods there should be no confidence in them. So they got it right here and there...even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Why should Americans have any confidence in him? Because the Senate's job is to make sure he is not criminal and not completely unqualified. He passes those tests. The Senate's job is NOT to give ideology tests. Bolton should be confirmed...but the Democrats do not like the fact that they are not the ones doing the appointing and are doing all they can to deny the proper authority of the President.


Next up: Tom Plocher of Hugo.
The April 10 Op Ex feature "How I'd fix my high school" went awry when it featured opinions largely from students who had been successful in conventional high schools.

How about doing the same article again and interviewing that much-maligned group, "the slackers"? That might reveal the real problems with our traditional high school -- too much authoritarianism a good thing in schools, too much useless information 'i'm never gonna yuse that english grammer stuf in reel life', too much sitting and listening to adults blathering on. Yeah, cuz you teens no SO much more than adults. That is why the youth are allowed to vote and run for office...because you are so much smarter and wiser. No wonder the "slackers" did so bad in high school and have to work that much harder afterwards to make up for it. I know. I was one.

Relevance to life in the 21st century? Not much. That is the comment that should be said about the slackers. The relevance of a slacker in the 21st century...not much. Get off your ass and do something or be resigned to being "much-maligned", not advancing careerwise and not moving up the socio-economic ladder. And while you slackers continue to think that you should be given attention those of us who roll up our sleeves will thank you for being satisfied with the exaulted position of French Fry Guy at the Fast Food Joint.

There were so many more unenlightened letters to reply to but I am out of time.


Post a Comment

<< Home