The People's Cube - Political Satire

It seems every day I read a letter to the editor that really strikes a chord. I thought it would be fun to share.

Here's a letter I read in today's Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The letter writer suggests that the Seattle P-I would be much better served if it were to use NPR as it's source of information about Muslim Jihadists in Britain rather than the very suspect views of "'al-Qaida experts' from France, Singapore, Sweden, Rome, the Philippines and 'national experts' FBI Director Robert Mueller and Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff." Notice she puts "al-Quida experts" and "national experts" in quotes.

Link to Letter to the Editor, Seattle P-I, Sunday 13 Aug 2006

Seattle Post-Intelligencer wrote:British personnel had better information

May I suggest that Seattle P-I editors begin listening to National Public Radio at lunchtime?
Instead of printing The Associated Press article on the front page, quoting "al-Qaida experts" from France, Singapore, Sweden, Rome, the Philippines and "national experts" FBI Director Robert Mueller and Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff, it would have been good to hear from the folks in Britain, who, according to NPR reporters in London, "are being very careful not to use the words al-Qaida."

If the British who made the arrests are avoided in this article, except for one unnamed source, it seems that the article was meant only to excite and inflame.

Is the P-I ready to start posting the daily red terrorism-threat level on the front page until after the November elections?

Dawn Blanch
Seattle

Dawn just had to put that last sentence in there too. It's obligatory.

The really fun part about this letter is news that comes direct from NPR unfiltered by Dawn Blanch:

Link to NPR : A Link to al-Qaida in the Airline Plot

NPR : A Link to al-Qaida in the Airline Plot wrote:World
A Link to al-Qaida in the Airline Plot

by Liane Hansen and Guy Raz

Weekend Edition Sunday, August 13, 2006 · British officials say the suspects in the bombing plot have been under surveillance since December -- and that the ringleader has ties to the al-Qaida-affiliated group in Pakistan that is believed to have murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.

LIES!!! Al Qaida is a peaceful organization who uses the courts to reach win-win solutions. This is capitalist propaganda!

Oh yes - it is good to see the opiate of the masses denounced in the glorious Democratic Communist People's Republic

'Christian fascism'

Editor -- President Bush now speaks of "Islamic fascism.'' Consider the source. Conquest, occupation, prison camps, torture, total domestic surveillance -- all justified by a religious-driven ideology of nationalism. Is it time to talk about Christian fascism?

MICHAEL URBAN

Santa Cruz

https://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article. ... ss.opinion

While researching the nation's Letters to the Editor today I inadvertently stumbled on the New York Times corrections for the day. While not a Letter to the Editor I thought this may be of interest:

Link to NYT Corrections

NYT Corrections 17 August 2006 wrote:Corrections

Published: August 17, 2006
An article on Tuesday about President Bush's defense of American policy in the fighting between Israel and Lebanon incorrectly described the planning that led to Mr. Bush's meetings on Monday at the Pentagon and the State Department. Mr. Bush's schedule for the day was prepared weeks ahead as part of the annual presidential review meetings; it was not devised last week as part of a White House effort to seek political advantage on national security after Senator Joseph I. Lieberman's loss in Connecticut's Democratic primary and news of a disrupted terrorist plot in Britain. (Go to Article)

I've noticed several Letters to the Editor in the nation's major newspapers addressing the subject of President Bush's remarks on "Islamic Fascism." This one from the LA Times is typical:

Link to LA Times letters

LA Times wrote:Bush is making a mistake in picking up right-wing talk radio's latest catch phrase, "Islamic fascists." Fascism is a form of government, and terrorists have shown no interest in governing, only killing.

Under fascism, the government exerts maximum control over the maximum number of people for the maximum financial gain of the tiny minority of businesses and wealthy individuals. It's the type of government Republicans have been trying to bring about since the 1920s, one the Bush administration has brought us perilously close to.

MICHAEL DAVIDSON

Long Beach

This is a particularly enjoyable example of good propaganda technique. Notice how it equates a political party whose roots are well planted in the ideas of Limited Government, the Rule of Law, and Constitutional Republicanism with a political movement of state and nation worship. Bravo, Mr Davidson. I wonder if he's one of those that endorses dictatorship as long as the enforced workers receive health care and the children are taught to read?
<br>There has been much debate over the definition of Fascism but at its core, as Mussollini said, the only purpose of government under Fascism was to uphold the state as supreme above all else, and for these reasons it can be said to have been a governmental statolatry. The word "statolatry" was coined by Mussollini. Link to wikipedia Statolatry

Here's a good Letter to the Editor. It's from the Seattle Times, Sunday, October 8, 2006.

To give you some background on the letter - I-933 is an initiative that would force the state government to follow, to the letter, the Washington State constitution's Takings Clause.

Seattle Times Letter to the Editor, Joel Schwartz wrote:Going back to Adam

Essentially, I-933 is about whether people — citizens — have the right to come together, through democratically elected representatives, and enact laws, rules and regulations for the common good.

Backers of I-933 call this tyranny; I call it civilization. Backers of I-933 are absolutists who would say that private property rights represent the deepest and most sacred principle of society, a shibboleth that should not be modified in the slightest for any reason.

I say property rights are relative and subject to common-sense restrictions, like the venerable free-speech exception of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater where there is no fire. Backers of I-933 exalt individual rights exclusively, as if the realities of a polyglot, crowded society provide no legitimate counterweight.

I say I-933's intent to bribe individuals not to harm the common good is in direct contravention to that which makes us most human, the recognition of humanity in others.

— Joel Schwartz, Seattle

Link to Letters to the Editor, Seattle Times, 10/08/2006

When I started to read this letter I thought it would be one of those letters written by some RightWinger sarcastically pretending to push one point of view only to end with some hate-filled screed defending his right to go against the Common Good. I was soon proved wrong. Mr. Schwartz's enlightening use of the "argument by non-sequitur" (yelling fire in a crowded theater) where he simply makes an assertion but makes no logical ties to bind the idea to his conclusion is brilliant stuff and well worth study in and of itself. Molly Ivins and Paul Kurgman should be proud.

It's refreshing to see that the idea's America was founded on, such as the notion that "without property rights, there ultimately are no rights," have been completely eroded down to nothing.

What Mr. Schwartz is really championing is the cold hard truth that he and his like-minded friends should be able to use the government to force the rest of society to bend to their beliefs. They know what is to be done. Back in more uncivilized days, when ideas clashed, people tried to convince others by the use of reason to come to their way of thinking. It was known as the market-place of ideas. No one would have conceived of using the government to force other people to their bidding. Not anymore. Things have finally come to the point that Communal Totalitarianism can be championed without ever having to explicitly say that you are a Marxist. That always seems to put people off and create a stir where none is needed. Communal Totalitarianism is just common sense anymore. Just call it the Common Good. Much more palatable.

I'm sure that comrade Schwartz would be more than happy to give up all of his personal property and excess, immoral wealth to better help the Common Good. After all, as comrade Schwartz reminds us, if a group of people decide that it is in the interest of their common good to take what you have, they should be free to elect someone to do for them. How many undernourished could be fed with the money he spent on his computer? How many homeless could could be housed in his home or apartment? Why does he have the "right" to keep the things he has paid for with the money he's earned through the vile, unfair system we labor under, when others are more in need than him? If the total sacrifice of comrade Schwartz's relative rights could ease the suffering of, say 5 or 6 less fortunate members of our polyglot, crowded society, then so be it! It would be for the most noble of all reasons, The Common Good.

In today's King County Journal comes the voice of staid Progressive maturity:

Letters to the Editor - KCJ wrote:Stop the name-calling

I see Michelle Malkin's column was not relevant last week because it was written before the election. I submit that the unhinged dingbat wingnut's column is not relevant whether written before, during or after the election — at least until she quits acting like a 10-year-old and stops the name-calling.

Rob Townsley

North Bend

Link to: KCJ Letters to the Editor 11/16/2006