« Social Security in 1998: For The Record | Main | The Budget Gets Even Worse. »

February 09, 2005

Comments

"That is because no matter where published (as if) it would remain an exhortation to Republicans."

It's sad if the only way you can get Republicans to pay attention is to bash Democrats, but I will trust your superior knowledge of the subject.

It's sad if the only way you can get Republicans to pay attention is to bash Democrats

I'm sorry; you lost me here: where is Sebastian bashing Democrats?

Slarti,

By using the word "Clintonian" to mean hairsplitting. Read back to my 1:44 PM comment.

Yeah, I saw that. Are you saying that by saying anything at all about Clinton, that Sebastian is bashing Democrats, plural? Are you saying that Clinton's hairsplitting vis a vis the word is, is mythical?

Few public figures are free of flaw, and sometimes it's useful to point to those figures and their flaws as a case in point, because EVERYONE is going to get the point. And I think Sebastian's defended his use of the word sufficiently on this thread that your objections can't possibly be sustained.

Unless you're making style commentary, in which case just ignore everything I've said to you here.

"Are you saying that by saying anything at all about Clinton, that Sebastian is bashing Democrats, plural?"

Not "saying anything at all".

"Are you saying that Clinton's hairsplitting vis a vis the word is, is mythical?"

Mythical? No. Distorted by Republicans beyond recognition? Yes.

"How can people be found in the custody of the US in a third country?"

I don't understand this question. If they aren't in our custody, how are we sending them over to other countries for torture?

This is why it is '_extraordinary_ rendition'. Here in Japan, there is a special status of Forces agreement (SOFA) that lays out the authority and circumstances where a US citizen who is a serviceman can be arrested and taken into custody. If you are a US citizen but not a member of the armed forces, you are subject to the laws and authorities of Japan. If US authorities wanted to arrest me, they would have to file an extradition request and that would be processed. If I were arrested by Japanese authorities, while I could request the US embassy to intervene on my behalf, what they could do would be severely restricted, especially if it were a major crime. That is how the law as I understand it works. When you have a situation of US forces operating in one country and arresting a foreign national from a third country, how exactly does the law cover that. Can US troops simply take people into custody in foreign countries? Theoretically no, hence the term 'extraordinary'. The renditions took place when the governments of Albania, Bulgaria and one other country agreed to allow CIA agents to capture these people and render them to Egypt. What exactly were the options? Could we have said 'no, do your own dirty work?' even though this was in conjunction with attempts to reduce the perceived threat of Islamic terrorists? As someone who I believe has argued for a stronger response to Islamic terrorism, I can't understand how you can say 'but of course, Clinton should have ignored this'. If you are arguing that Clinton should have made an effort to explain to people the looming threat of Islamic terrorism, don't you remember 'wag the dog'? I don't believe that Clinton 'widened the gap'. I do think he exploited it, but what other option, historically, without the benefit of hindsight, was available? That gap exists not because Clinton cunningly created it, it exists because of an inability for us to define some level of basic human rights that applies universally, despite what our Declaration of Independence says. It's terrible and I hate it, but I can't just go around making up rights for people, as much as my liberal heart would like to.

This is why people were going ape-shit over the fact of ghost detainees. This is why the question of whether Gitmo was terra nullius arises. My complaint about 'clintonian hairsplitting' is that it makes it seem like there were these clear cut laws and that ole debil Bill gave a wink and a nudge and cleared out a space that hadn't been there. This is not a point you have with both administrations, because you don't refer to any hairsplitting on the part of the Bush admin.

I understand that for you 'clintonian hairsplitting' is a code word for all the distasteful characteristics of Clinton. Fine, I understand that is the way you feel. But the term obscures more than it illuminates. I specifically noted that this was probably a tack for the Redstate crew. Noted yet again. But for our discussions here, I feel under no obligation to take the premises of those at Redstate for granted.

I see that Katherine has taken me to task for defending Clinton. But who would you propose who has done this correctly? Or would have done this correctly? Carter, maybe, but in light of what happened with the invasion of East Timor, I don't know if I can say that for certain. I'm not a lawyer, so I am interested in the intersection of the practical reality of what happens with the framework of laws.

And you do cite lots of laws. OK, who brings the charges? Who arrests those who have done this? How is punishment meted out? You cite the torture statute, but I bet that in those renditions, the agents did not torture. I believe that they would have committed conspiracy, but practically, how do you prove that? There are no witnesses, no corpse, and it is an Egyptian citizen being abused by the Egyptian government. You cite laws that start with 'it shall be US policy...' but I thought that the process of presidential findings was specifically designed to suspend those sorts of rules. 'There's this law' doesn't really answer my objections, there has to be a practical means to enforce it and a will to enforce it. Since extraordinary rendition occured, I assume that regardless of laws, the means and will were not there. What I am asking is why and I'm not sure why that is so threatening, unless you think that to question the means and the will then carves out the ability to ignore the law.

Here in Japan, a number of foreigners are arguing that because Japan is a signatory to various UN treaties, they have a right to file suit for discrimination. (note: I've been peripherally involved in some of these suits) Perhaps in 50 years, there will be some recognition that this is appropriate. That's how long it took to deal with various Nazis. But have UN treaties been applied in US legal decisions for cases that have not been over 40 years old?

I do think, after 9-11, that the president needs to be able to take specific actions to protect the US. This is because states no longer constrain actors. You seem to suggest that Clinton took no action and simply threw his hands up in the air. But I think that there was a presidential finding and there was something over Clinton's signature authorizing this. I am not sure if that is the case with Bush.

I'm sorry to have troubled both of you, but I do think you are letting your dislike of Clinton color the circumstances that these events took place in, though the converse could equally be true of me. Off to bed for me as well. My apologies if I troubled you.

Distorted by Republicans beyond recognition?

You know, I don't think the parsing of is really ought to need any emphasis at all, as something to point to as an example of hairsplitting. What anyone else said about it is irrelevant.

"As someone who I believe has argued for a stronger response to Islamic terrorism, I can't understand how you can say 'but of course, Clinton should have ignored this'."

I've already responded to this. I'm not saying that he should have ignored to the problem. I'm saying that responding to the problem by exploiting a gap in the legal structure instead of addressing it wasn't an appropriate response. I am also saying that Bush following that precedent and expanding the legal gap was wrong. I'm all for problem-solving. I'm not for sweeping problems under the carpet where they fester.

Slarti,

My response to your last comment is exactly the same as my comment at 1:44 PM. Congratulations, we have now gone 360 degrees around the circle.

And it's just as irrelevant a response now as it was then, Dantheman. Don't blame Sebastian for your hypersensitivity to Clinton references.

Slarti,

If you think it's only me, you are way off.

Don't blame Sebastian for your hypersensitivity to Clinton references.

"Hypersensitivity"? Come off it.

"Hypersensitivity"? Come off it.

So too are hypersensitive? I'm not sure what to do with this datum.

Sounding Reaganesque there, Slart.

Look, the op-ed is fine as it is - it's avowedly partisan. When I write an avowedly partisan op-ed about unconstitutional actions taken covertly by the Bush admin, I'm going to call those actions Reaganesque, and if Dan objects, fair's fair.

I'm still a little confused. Are you guys actually disputing that Clinton was a hairsplitting kind of guy? And achieved a sort of fame for said hairsplitting? How can this possibly be a sore point, when it's just the facts?

Are you guys actually disputing that Clinton was a hairsplitting kind of guy?

Compared to George W. Bush? No, of course not.

Mind you, compared to George W. Bush, most Presidents come off as being honest, straightforward kind of guys, so maybe Bush should just be eliminated for purposes of comparison, since he makes all other Presidents look so much better. And you wouldn't want that, would you?

Of course Clinton was a hairsplitting kind of guy, though as best I recall "is is" was said with a smile. But Bush is a hairsplitting kind of guy too - consider the privatize tango or the immininent cha cha cha or "the program will cost $n over a decade where that includes the years before the program turns on" shuffle. Any president worth his salt will hairsplit when the ends are knocking on the door, and any politician who gets elected will by definition do it.

Whereas I don't think all presidents or politicians would countenance trading arms for hostages etc. or oversee a govt so lackadaisically as to be able to truthfully deny knowledge his top lieutenants were engaged in it.

p.s. sorry Ken White isn't around to write my 5:18 more authoritatively.

How can this possibly be a sore point, when it's just the facts?

Because there's nothing particularly absurd between distinguishing between 'is' and 'was', as Clinton did.

Generally, I don't have any huge affection for Clinton -- I'm well to his left on most issues -- but the insane witch-hunting with which the right went after him left a bad enough taste in my mouth that seeing someone use 'Clinton' as negative shorthand tends to make me write them off as a mindlessly partisan nitwit. In this case, it didn't bother me, because the rest of the piece overcame the impression, and it was writen for a Republican audience, but that's generally the impression that sort of reference gives to anyone who wasn't on the "Impeach Clinton" bandwagon.

... Are you guys actually disputing that Clinton was a hairsplitting kind of guy? And achieved a sort of fame for said hairsplitting? How can this possibly be a sore point, when it's just the facts?
Slarti - I'll engage a bit of mind reading and say that Clinton's fame (or infamy) in this regard is a bigger deal to the right than to the left. It's like references to Bush's somewhat incongruous facial tics (can you say smirk?) that tend to distract from the body of the argument even in cases where such references are relevant.

Slarti,

"Are you guys actually disputing that Clinton was a hairsplitting kind of guy?"

Yes. His fame at hoarsplitting is, as Mark Twain would have said, greatly exaggerated.

"And achieved a sort of fame for said hairsplitting?"

Yes, largely due to the repetition of this charge by the SCLM.

"How can this possibly be a sore point, when it's just the facts?"

Because it's not our perception of reality, any more than saying Reagan regularly made statements which had no basis in fact would appeal to your perception of reality.

"hoarsplitting" should be "hairsplitting"

rilkefan,

"When I write an avowedly partisan op-ed about unconstitutional actions taken covertly by the Bush admin, I'm going to call those actions Reaganesque, and if Dan objects, fair's fair."

My primary objection would be that isn't my definition of Reaganesque (although it would not be another good example of it).

I would still object to it as providing more heat than light, though.

"Hoarsplitting" is funnier. Especially in context. If you were shooting for funny, which you weren't. But if you were, mission accomplished!

And JFTR, I refuse to hear any complaint casting "hairsplitting" negatively from anyone who voted for someone who coined the phrase "weapons-of-mass destruction-related-program activities," and who spent a year tapdancing around how Iraq could perhaps nuke us or drop sarin on our heads ANY MINUTE NOW without using the word "imminent" so as to leave themselves a little daylight. Please.

In an effort to get back on topic and to answer Sebastian's request way upthread, I'll offer up some copy editing suggestions. The paragraph in question is:

Torture is wrong. The practice of extraordinary rendition began as a classic Clintonian hairsplitting exercise in the mid 1990s to avoid the clear letter of the laws which prohibit America from using torture. This is the kind of avoidance of the law and ridiculous semantics that we decried when employed by the Clinton adminstration. It has gotten no more attractive just because Bush has decided to continue the program.
You're putting a lot of emphasis on the hairsplitting and omitting the other driver for the program. From the New Yorker article: Describing the C.I.A.’s frustration, Scheuer said, “We were turning into voyeurs. We knew where these people were, but we couldn’t capture them because we had nowhere to take them.” The agency realized that “we had to come up with a third party.” Rewritten along the lines of:
Torture is wrong. The practice of extraordinary rendition began in the mid 1990s as a way to detain and question suspected terrorists outside of the American legal system. It was a hairsplitting exercise to avoid the clear letter of the laws which prohibit America from kidnapping and torture. This is the kind of avoidance of the law and ridiculous semantics that we decried when employed by the Clinton adminstration. It has gotten no more attractive just because Bush has decided to continue the program.
it provides a little more background, balances out Clinton and Bush references, and tosses in a new crime (kidnapping) under Clinton, just to keep from leaning too far the other way.

Geez JerryN, couldn't you have come by with that point a little sooner? ;^)

But seriously, my apologies for worrying this like a dog with a bone. I am a US citizen living overseas, and being the navel gazing type, I have to wonder where do my rights come from? Who protects them? If, through some strange set of circumstances a la a Hitchcock movie, you end up charged with a crime
that you were innocent of, what would you do?

A friend of mine (US citizen, travelling in Taipei, I think) had his briefcase stolen along with his passport. He went to the embassy and explained what happened and that he was a a US citizen. The consular officer said 'OK, prove it'. (I now advise everyone to make photocopies of their passport, leave them with your employer relatives and trusted friends).

Honestly, if you had to go to Gitmo, who would you rather be, Jose Padilla, David Hicks, or someone from Afghanistan with no passport?

I sincerely believe that there is a set of basic human rights that exist for everyone, but we have to acknowledge that the nation state has been and continues to be the guarantor of our rights. An attack on a citizen was justification for the power of the state to declare war on another state. Now, if people are placed in a situation where they are not protected, is there a network of laws to protect them? My own non-legal opinion is no, there is not a network. This is not to discount Katherine's urging that we make illegal extraordinary rendition, we enforce our laws on torture, we acknowledge the treaties we have signed. We are beginning to develop that network, but it is by no means agreed upon and it is not very clear how it can be enforced.

Moving back up the thread, Katherine wrote:

I have said before, and will say again: extraordinary rendition and Guantanamo Bay in its current form are the wrong answers to a very real, very difficult problem. In the long run, if we are going to have to come up with a better answer--and I don't think trying them on criminal charges before Article III courts, or giving them POW status (note that "giving them POW status" and "complying with the Geneva Conventions" are not synonymous) are sufficient answers.

The answer(s) are only going to come when we come to some agreement about what are the basic human rights and where do they come from. Sadly, we can no longer depend on basic human decency as a source of such rights.

None of this is to dismiss the work that Katherine has done on this or my gratitude for Sebastian to have written this.

Where do human rights come from?

LJ, as you know Slartibartfast cited the Declaration of Independence above though he descirbed it as "not a legal document."

The Declaration was famously cited in the Supreme Court of the United States:

One of the Judges who presided in some of the preceding trials, is said to have called this an anomalous case. It is indeed anomalous, and I know of no law, but one which I am not at liberty to argue before this Court, no law, statute or constitution, no code, no treaty, applicable to the proceedings of the Executive or the Judiciary, except that law, (pointing to the copy of the Declaration of Independence, hanging against one of the pillars of the court room,) that law, two copies of which are ever before the eyes of your Honors. I know of no other law that reaches the case of my clients, but the law of Nature and of Nature's God on which our fathers placed our own national existence.

John Quincy Adams, Argument Before the Supreme Court of the United States in the Case of the United States, Appellants, vs. Cinque and Other Africans Captured in the Schooner Amistad (Delivered 24 Feb. and 1 Mar. 1841). New York: W. W. Benedict, 1841.

Sebastian, I now see that my "thank you" earlier was insufficiently emphatic. THANK YOU. And, my thanks to Katherine as well for her sustained and excellent work.

Compared to George W. Bush? No, of course not.

Your skill at changing the subject has already been noted. If you'll recall, we were discussing "Clintonesque".

Sebastian,

I agree with the other commenters that this article desrves a wider print-audience. I don't know the exact mechanics of submitting letters to the editor with the hope of getting them published as op-eds, but I would advise you submit it as a regular letter to the editor, with a cover letter. In this cover letter, you might identify yourself a little, and if I were you I would talk up the amount of linkage the piece has received in the blogs. Given the newspapers' recent fascination with all things bloggy, they might be interested in the piece on that account alone.

Okay, if you do submit it as an op-ed, there are a couple of things I'd revise. I'm putting on my professional writing instructor hat now, so please forgive me if I sound pedantic.

To start with, you're a known personality online, and your "I" means something here--less so in print. Your introduction will need considerable tightening-up, maybe making your "I" a more general, representative conservative.

If I were you, I'd moderate the reference to "Clintonian hairsplitting" for a general audience. It worked for your conservative audience, it didn't work for your liberal audience, and for a general audience you'd be better served with the more, er, well, Clintonian formulation "that kind of legalistic hairsplitting that so enraged conservatives"--or something like it.

Perhaps most importantly, you need to separate your last paragraph into two parts: 1) the diagnosis of the Republican party's false perception of being still a minority party, and 2) the exhortation to action that should send readers off to do something in particular.

I would leave some online references so that readers less familiar with the debate could find resources. However, I would choose carefully where you want readers to go: if you don't want to introduce a mass readership to ObWi, direct them to RedState or to your personal blog.

This is a clear, passionate, and well-written article. It should be publishable in some of the top papers. I don't know what your personable credentials look like; if they're sexy, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be able to place this in the NYT or WaPo. It's a breaking story, and your piece has the sassiness of the blogging community.

Good luck! I can't help feeling as though principled conservatives like you are our only hope....

I oppose extraordinary rendition but I support aggressive interrogation.

I believe the problem here is that many view aggressive interrogation as torture (I don't). I suspect that is why extraordinary rendition becomes the fall back position.

ral
I know I sound bloodyminded about this, but I'm Japanese-American, so citing Adams citing the Declaration of Independence doesn't really do it for me. And setting aside the whole legal reasoning for the internment, (which has never been overturned, just subject to a Coram Nobis finding), we still have to deal with the whole notion of the legal system and its relation to Native American sovereignty.

Look, maybe I'm like Comic Book Guy here, but my argument is that questions of nationality, citizenship and sovereignty are not 'hairsplitting'. I would accept JerryN's rewritten version, which is less flattering to Clinton, as my aim is not to defend Clinton as much as to suggest that the problem of extraordinary rendition is not one of us ignoring clear laws, but one of changing definitions of citizens, residents and rights.

So does anyone actually know about the mechanics of submitting a guest Op-Ed to any of the major papers?

BTW, my personal blog had 10x the regular number of daily hits as of 9:00. I got a link from Calpundit and Yglesias (thanks). I got a link to the RedState posting from Michael Totten (also thanks). Annoyingly Totten is the closest I have gotten to a conservative link which if you know anything about him isn't saying much (he is really more of a liberal warblogger). Which makes sense because I much more of a liberal-side blogosphere presence, but is sad considering the intended audience.

LJ, please forgive me if I came across as patronizing or critical. Many have observed that the United States has not always lived up to its ideals. The words of the Declaration, though, are quite radical even today when it comes to human rights. Its plain meaning is that overthrow of a government that is destructive of such rights is justified.

Sebastian, for the New York Times you can send mail to [email protected]

Jes:

Compared to George W. Bush? No, of course not.

Slart: "Your [sic - think you mean felix's] skill at changing the subject has already been noted. If you'll recall, we were discussing "Clintonesque"."

It makes no sense to try to discuss these terms in a vacuum - I see no changing of the subject here. As I argue, Bush hairsplits with the worst/best of them - so I think you beg the question above.

Well, rilkefan, even if I stipulated that GWB was right up there in the hairsplitting roster, it take nothing away from Clinton's abilities. Or does it? I guess it depends on how subjective you are.

Slart, you say Giambian to refer to the use of steroids, and I object that you might as well say Bondsian or Ortizian or Sosaian(depending on who you root for) - that in fact it's (an understood) part of the job description. You're not (in my view) wrong, you're partisan.

"So does anyone actually know about the mechanics of submitting a guest Op-Ed to any of the major papers? "

Oh, crap, I meant to write...yes, I have tried it. 0 rate of success, naturally. You'd have to edit it a bit to make it more formal and give a bit more exposition, but the length is about right. <http://www.pubpol.duke.edu/courses/op-ed/national/>here's a link to "Op-Ed" tips for some major papers but it may be out of date. Usually you can find the submissions address by poking around the website. It helps a lot to have some credential or expertise you can cite. You're not supposed to submit to more than one paper at a time, which is really annoying considering the success rate, so it's tempting to cheat....I leave that to your conscience.

It's a LOT easier getting a letter-to-the-editor published. Though, I also have more trouble with Op-Eds--I find it easier to write shorter and easier to write longer. (Also a lot easier to get a link from a friendly blogger by emailing them, if it's someone you know a bit & you only do it when they'd be really interested.)

not really on topic, here, but: one thing people probably underestimate as a way of having an effect is actually e-mailing an individual reporter or writer, if there's factual information you want to bring to someone's attention.

Oops. HERE's a link to "Op-Ed tips" for some major papers but it may be out of date.

Slart, you say Giambian to refer to the use of steroids

Wait...you're saying Clinton was on steroids?

Really. Clinton's attempt to parse "is" is a historical moment. NPR even refers to it from time to time. Bush is just not going to achieve that sort of peak soundbite moment, if only for the reason that he sucks as an orator.

I wouldn't say Giambian or Sosian or anything else in regards to steroid use, because none of those guys was particularly clever (dare I say devious) in talking around their steroid use, or lack thereof.

Real point here is, is there anyone at all who didn't know what Sebastian was talking about when he said that? I'd guess not; mission accomplished, communication delivered.

Slartibartfast: Your skill at changing the subject has already been noted. If you'll recall, we were discussing "Clintonesque".

Indeed. And my point is that since George W. Bush has been hairsplitting right out there in public with even more agonizing attention to getting that hair split right down the middle, it is, as Rilkefan already acutely observed, merely partisan to decide that it's "Clintonesque".

Which is rather the point of the thread: I agree with everyone who's said that Sebastian's essay deserves a wider audience - the wider the better. Others have already suggested appropriate alternatives to "Clintonesque" suitable to a less exclusively conservative audience that get the point across.

Real point here is, is there anyone at all who didn't know what Sebastian was talking about when he said that? I'd guess not; mission accomplished, communication delivered.

One of the repeated points that has been made right here on Obsidian Wings is that using inflammatory language is a barrier to communication, even if the audience you are speaking to understands every word you say, because if the language you use irritates/annoys them, they start thinking about your use of words rather than what you are trying to convey.

There's a point often made in technical writing manuals. Use of "he" as generic pronoun is still common, and still defended by many grammarians: this was even more strongly so back when I was first learning the skill. However, if a technical writer uses generic "he" when writing instructions, it is pretty much guaranteed to annoy a good 40% of the people reading it. (Some women won't be annoyed, because they accept generic "he" as including "she", but some men will, because they don't.) The annoyance won't be a major one, but it will be enough to distract the reader from immediate comprehension of the meaning of the sentence - and when writing instructions/explanations, the last thing a technical writer wants to do is to provide any distractions of style. So, to communicate clearly, avoid use of "generic he" - because the audience's annoyance is also a barrier to communication.

Now, it may be that "Clintonesque" can be defended as a linguistic signal to conservatives/Republicans that Sebastian really is a conservative Republican. That's certainly how I took it when reading Sebastian's post. Others have advised that when it's read by a wider audience (as it should be), use of "Clintonesque" will be less acceptable, and may even be a barrier to publication. Which would be a shame.

One of the repeated points that has been made right here on Obsidian Wings is that using inflammatory language is a barrier to communication, even if the audience you are speaking to understands every word you say, because if the language you use irritates/annoys them, they start thinking about your use of words rather than what you are trying to convey.

Your use of inflammatory language is heavy-handed and frequent, yet you complain when others do it. I can only conclude that your objective is something other than persuasion.

Sebastian,

I also encourage you to submit this as a guest op-ed. Doesn't have to be the NYT. It might actually accomplish more in a paper that reaches a smaller but more conservative audience.

I have no experience with this, but as others have suggested credentilas help. Have you been active in Republican political organizations, or anything like that?

Slarti, read the whole thread. Jes isn't suggesting Seb stop using inflammatory rhetoric here at ObiWi; she's (?)suggesting he choose different terminology if he wants to present The Exhortation as an Op-Ed in a regular, MSM/SCLM newspaper.

It is actually an interesting problem: I think the Clintonian reference (for people who don't know me) helps signal the fact that I really am a Republican. So it is likely to help my intended audience recieve the message I am trying to send. The flip side is that if I submit it with such language to a newspaper (with a high chance of it being reviewed by a Democrat for inclusion) I may turn them off enough that it won't get published--making it likely that my intended audience won't even view it, much less see it. Hmmm.

I'm not getting you, CaseyL. Unpersuasive in the MSM is unlikely to be persuasive here.

CaseyL: Jes isn't suggesting Seb stop using inflammatory rhetoric here at ObiWi; she's (?)suggesting he choose different terminology if he wants to present The Exhortation as an Op-Ed in a regular, MSM/SCLM newspaper.

Precisely. As I've repeatedly said, with regard to the context for which Sebastian's post was written, I've no quarrel with the language at all.

Sebastian: I may turn them off enough that it won't get published--making it likely that my intended audience won't even view it, much less see it. Hmmm.

The best advice I can give is the standard - know your market. Check out the papers you're interested in submitting to, and see how they phrase things in the Op Eds. (A covering letter used to help, but in the days of e-mail, maybe not so much...)

"Unpersuasive in the MSM is unlikely to be persuasive here."

Why? Sebastian has a body of work, and most of us know what level of partisanship to expect from him. On the other hand, if this became an op-ed piece in a newspaper, the vast majority would not know Holsclaw from cole slaw. They culd be turned off by his partisanship in ways we may not.

"They culd be turned off by his partisanship in ways we may not."

The problem is, 'they'. My intended audience even for an op-ed isn't likely to be turned off by 'Clintonian'. But the publishers might be.

Shouldn't you aim at very conservative newspapers than?

"Shouldn't you aim at very conservative newspapers than?"

Heh.

The next step in this line of reasoning is realizing that the administration's handling of domestic affairs most notably the handling of the poor, the homeless, the sick, the injured, the veterans, etc. while it does not amount to torture in itself, it feels very much so as one is being tortured and innocent. All for the sake of tax cuts. We need to begin treating those of us who are poor much better than we currently do. Welfare reform came with Clinton, you can blame it on him, just let me live at half of the poverty level, that would raise the amount of money I receive from the state by about three times. With that money, I could afford to live in an apartment without having to borrow money from my credit card. Please hurry, my credit card is almost maxed out.

Likewise the police in the United States use many of these practices in getting confessions from prisoners who may or may not be guilty. This must also end.

Your post took an incredible amount of courage, but I fear that it came too late to do any good for those who have already suffered and died at our hands. All I can hope is that someday all of these horrible practices will end.

Blessed be.

Love,

Hanna

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad