Quantcast

Web Letters | The Nation

Letters

Impeachment Fever Rises

If the Vice President has engaged in enough criminal activity that can be proved then Nancy Pelosi must put impeachment back on the table. This is not a matter of politics its a matter of law. If I had committed crimes I would'nt receive any sympathy nor would I expect any, so why should Cheney, or Bush for that matter.

I would like to tell Nancy Pelosi, my Congressman Tim Bishop and any of the other Congressmembers that if you have evidence that proves the President or Vice President committed impeachable offenses and you do nothing about it then you should be impeached or at the very least not re-elected. I would never vote against you for doing what is right. I might even donate to your next campaign to show my approval. Americans are not children, we can handle ending this ridiculous war and getting rid of the criminal elements in the administration at the same time. The United States is a great country, but why dont we have great leadership?

Tom Pisano

Shirley, NY

Apr 26 2007 - 12:33pm

A Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Is the death penalty a cruel and unusual punishment for a child rapist/pedophile, and an apparent repeat offender? I don't think so. Unless you are arguing against applying the death penalty in all instances, the author's point that it shouldn't be applied in this instance because no murder occurred is ludicrous. This crime murders a child's childhood and robs their self-worth. Granted, our current judicial system shapes criminal penalties based on race and wealth, especially the death penalty. But, as long as there is a death penalty, and child rape is a crime in which perpetrators always repeat if given the opportunity, the sentence could apply. The minimum would be a life sentence.

Would the author have accepted a plea of self-defense if the victim had had the ability and opportunity to act herself?

Rick Trachsel

Gainesville, Florida

Apr 26 2007 - 12:16pm

Don't Bet on Offsets

More loose thinking and sensationalism around the subject of offsets. It's a shame--offsets are not not the whole answer, or a "get out of jail free" card, but giving the impression that it's all just a fraud (in spite of the evidence to the contrary) gets people out of some very good practices:

1) actually offsetting their CO2--a practice that removes the exact pollutant we're concerned about from the atmosphere, and something I wish could be extended to other pollutants.

2) spending money for no selfish return--acknowledging the need to spend to make things better

3) starting the industries/awareness/cash flow that can be leveraged for even greater action in the future

4) actually DOING something after installing the swirly bulb

The article takes the first-ver Consumers' Guide to Offsets and instead of pointing to the good companies and the fact that now for the first time there's a guide to help individuals make even better offsetting choices it points to the bad companies, and vaguely implies that their lack of controls guarantees a great fraud.

It also makes disgraceful statements like this :"Then there are deeper questions about the very idea of offsetting. The December 2006 study of the offset industry suggested that consumers are getting bamboozled."

This is something worthy of Karl Rove--it looks like it makes sense if you read it quickly but it doesn't at all. Consumers being 'bamboozled' is the misleading and destructive tenor of the whole piece, and is not a new point. The new point made here is that there are "deeper questions about the very idea of offsetting." The article has absolutely no substantiation of this. Still, 95 percent of readers will come away with the idea that "deeper questions" exist--when they either do not, or they have not read anything at all about them.

In fact, offsets and a market for CO2 are an essential part of pretty much every recommended approach to combating climate change. They are already funneling money to highly significant, additional/incremental actions all over the world. This is money that would not otherwise have flowed, or would have flowed so slowly through government hands that we might as well not have bothered.

The Consumers' Guide is a great answer to consumer "bamboozlement," and something that their article could have helped clarify and take a step further. Instead they decided to deceive and paint fuzzy pictures about some systematic fraud or failure that just doesn't exist. 100,000 people will then turn off the idea of offsets and this form of personal action for no good reason.

Way to go.

Quentin S Prideaux

Wellesley, MA

Apr 26 2007 - 9:30am

Bush Blames the Troops

Scheer makes good sense and this observance is a slight twist to the phrase "standing behind the troops," but sadly it will make no difference.

I am convinced that just as much as Mr. Bush will be the first to blame his military officers if they don't pull off something that can be pronounced a victory in Iraq, he also has a palace guard that will protect him and isolate him from any opinion such as this.

Mr. Bush set in place from the get-go a protect the legacy operation in Iraq. First sign was the admission of faulty intelligence. Second sign was when the coallition of the willing fell apart or failed to materialize we had all that "old Europe" talk and "American Fries"...it was never considered that we had a bad argument--just chicken-hearted allies who hadn't expressed gratitude for WWII.

Now if Prateus fails he will "have been given all the resources possible" or, better yet, "The Demoncratic party, playing pure politics with American lives, failed to provide timely funding for the troops so they ran out of ammo and were sitting ducks".

Why else is this strawdog of "I'll veto" put forth now? It is just one more step in the pattern that we all see and the effect of which the White House paints with a different brush.

Harold D. House

Westhampton, NY

Apr 26 2007 - 5:23am

Adapt or Die

This is such a pathetic article. AGW is a hoax! If the earth is getting wamer it is a natural cycle. The only scientific proof we have, ice cores show the CO2 increases after the warming. There is no, zero, proof of AGW. If you want global redistribution of wealth just say so! And, how about that new study that says the wind shear from GW will decrease the storms, not increase them! Or the one that says the warmer we get the less temperature differences there will be hence, the less severe storms. By the way, I really enjoyed the ice age we had after the repot came out in 1975. Get a life.

John Miller

Olathe, KS

Apr 25 2007 - 9:38am

Impeachment: The Case Against

A brief suggestion for Mr. Levinson: Read the 1998 Report by the Staff of the Impeachment Inquiry from the House Judiciary Committee. In it, the overall conclusion is that grounds for impeachment do not need to be criminal in nature, and that impeachment in itself is a political tool.

If impeachment were in fact limited to criminal transgressions, then it would follow that the impeachment trial would carry criminal sentencing. It does not, however. Impeachment merely removes an individual from office. Because the Senate is not an impartial jury of peers, it cannot act as a regular trial court and issue sentences; therefore making the very use of the Senate as a trial body in exclusively criminal matters inplausible.

Patrick K. Hunt

Granville, OH

Apr 25 2007 - 12:55am

The Clash of Ignorance

The late Professor Edward Said was one of our foremost and distinguished intellectual, who actually deserved the title "expert."

In this excerpt "Clash of Ignorance," he again as an English professor proves why his work is held in such high esteem by the non-phony intelligencia.

One has to read Prof. Said's work with careful attention to learn the heart of his arguments. And again, this piece where he tears Samuel Huntington's crass and sloppy thesis as overly simplistic is highly accurate and admirable.

May God bless you, Dr. Said, for your courage for standing up for Palestinian rights and the indelible legacy of justice and critique you have left behind.

Nazim Haqqani

Newark, NJ

Apr 25 2007 - 12:12am

The Nation Dozen

OUR LEADERS

You find it hard to keep them straight? Well, here they are: the candidates.

In ’04 John Edwards ran for Veep. (Instead we got the surly creep.)

We used to say that Gore’s a bore. On warming, though, he knows the score.

The joint will jump if we choose Hill. (First Gent will be the randy Bill.)

Obama warned, “Avoid Iraq!” McCain says, “Beat ‘em blue and black!”

Mitt Romney says he loves his gun. (In Texas shooting guys is fun.)

What rhymes with Romney? Giuliani! Toast of East Coast italiani.

A deuce of Thompsons is a lot, So keep in mind: One’s Fred, one’s not.

If Gingrich joins the campaign strife. Look out for stabs with well-honed knife.

So there they are, from left to right, And more to come, the blatherskites!

James C. Davis

Philadelphia, PA

Apr 24 2007 - 5:10pm

An Impartial Interrogation of George W. Bush

Dear Senator

I enjoyed your article in the LA Times,"Get it Straight, Mr.Cheny." How interesting that it be published on the same page as an article entitled "All hail the clueless American," which accused all of us as being attentive not to the facts of our times but the popular polls which may or may not represent the truth.

Your article referred to Mr.Cheny accusing the Democratic Party today of reverting to the views of your party in 1972 and warning that in doing so will raise taxes.

Just for the record I am not "clueless," and as for the Democrats raising taxes I would like to point out the very special tax increase that the present Administration has levied on the senior citizens/social security recipients.

While we have been distracted by the Iraq war and the other incompetencies and indiscretions of this Administration it has continued its assault on social security. The latest assault comes in the form of a tax increase for seniors.

Preparation of my tax return revealed that the deduction for the medicare premiums which are taken from our Social Security checks has been taken away. I am not a CPA but it is clear that a removal or reduction in a tax deduction equals a tax increase. This tax increase is clearly aimed at senior citzens/Social Security recipients, a section of the population least likely to be able to afford it.

I have written to or e-mailed my senators, governor, representatives, even the representatives of other states (they too have seniors whom they should be representing), and so far I have received no response to our being targeted with this tax.

Perhaps they should be reminded that seniors are a significant sector of the voting population and we are paying attention.

Desparately seeking representation.

Paul Ray Hamilton

Oak Park , CA

Apr 24 2007 - 12:23pm

Disseminate Information, Protect Democracy

The Nation offers digital-only subscriptions at the following links:

DOMESTIC: www.thenation.com/digitalrequest INT'L (excluding Canada): www.thenation.com/global CANADA: www.thenation.com/canada

Art Stupar

New York, New York

Apr 24 2007 - 12:02pm