Letters to the Editor

Since I do not confine myself to writing for my blog, but write Letters to the Editor as well, I think it worthwhile to share these letters with you from time to time, whether or not they are published. Thus on January 5, 2010 I wrote to the New York Times in response to an editorial entitled: "Yes, It Was Torture, and Illegal" as follows:

I am appalled at your Editorial, "Yes, It Was Torture, and Illegal" (New York Times, January 10) not because there is any question in my mind that torture is abhorrent and illegal, but because your editorial is deliberately misleading. It would be nice if the Times would inform its readers what case they have reference to. Failing that, however, it is inexcusable for the Times to misrepresent the rationale of that case, Nowhere does the decision, handed down in April of 2009 (nine months ago), hold that, "it was not 'clearly established' that torture was illegal". What the decision holds, is that, "at the time of their detention, neither the Supreme Court nor this court had ever held that aliens captured on foreign soil and detained beyond sovereign U.S. territory had any constitutional rights."

You have every right to differ with the conclusion of the court, but you do a disservice to journalism and to your readers when you choose to misrepresent. As the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, "you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts".

The letter was not published.

On January 23, 2010 I wrote a letter to my local newspaper the Fort Lee Suburbanite as follows:

“It is ironic that during the same week that the Supreme Court decided that there may be no limits on the manner or amount that corporations can spend on American elections, I find that my voice in the Suburbanite is substantially stilled by a new requirement that letters be limited to 450 words.

“While I understand that this comes about by the space and cost pressures that all newspapers are facing, it nevertheless, shows the lack of balance between the speech of those endowed with control of great wealth, and those like me.

“Unions and corporations will now be spending money that does not belong to those who decide how to spend it, since in the case of unions, leaders, and in the case of corporations, Boards of Directors, make that decision. In anticipation of the court’s decision I wrote a letter to your paper, which was published on October 9, 2009 under the heading, “The Best Government Money Can Buy.” It appears on my blog as 'Money and Politics'

“I must say that with this Supreme Court decision we have come full circle. The Supreme Court, in Bush v. Gore, decided on who our next President should be, that President then chose members of the court, who in turn stacked the deck in favor of Bush’s party. While the ruling also applies to unions there is no comparison between the amount of money available to unions and to corporations.

"But the worst part is not even the partisan aspects; it is the ability, already great for corporations, to reward or intimidate lawmakers, for an Exxon, for example, can say to any lawmaker, ‘let us pollute, and we shall reward you with heaps of cash in support of your next election’, or the reverse, ‘oppose us and we shall spare no money in bringing about your defeat.’ Unions can bring similar rewards or threats. The people lose! Money reigns! “Let us not forget the truism spoken by the campaign manager for William McKinley, during the 1906 election where McKinley’s campaign was financed primarily by corporations, ‘There are two things that are important in politics. 'The first is money and I can't remember the second.’

"It was that election which prompted passage of the Tillman Act in 1907 that first put limitations on corporate spending in elections.”

The letter was published, but subsequently the limit on Letters to the Editor was reduced to 300 words. When I first started publishing in the Suburbanite there was no limit on length.

On January 25, 2010 I again wrote a letter to the New York Times in response to an editorial entitled "Avoiding a Japanese Decade."

I wrote:

“I congratulate the New York Times for endorsing the Administration’s effort to regulate banks. (New York Times January 2, 2010 editorial). Hopefully, Republicans will not block it in the Senate, as they have blocked almost every other initiative by invoking the filibuster.

“I suggest, however, that until we have a cap on usurious interest, no regulations will be adequate to stop their reckless behavior, or stop their rip-off of the American public. Banks now borrow from consumers at below 2%, and charge them for loans via credit cards at 20% or more. They then extrapolate a one-day loan into a month interest (which is what happens when a payment is late by one day) and add late and other fees, causing the actual interest to be well over 100%. In addition
because of the huge profits resulting, the banks are encouraged to lend recklessly. No regulation short of this will be effective.”

It was not published.

On January  31, 2010 I again wrote to the New York Times in response to an Op-Ed piece by Charles M. Blow entitled: "Lost in Translation."

I wrote:

"I find Mr. Blow’s Op-Ed piece “Lost in Translation” (New York Times, January 30) shocking.

"The ignorance of the American electorate is appalling.

"But what is even more appalling is that he blames this ignorance on our President, who it has been popular, lately, to blame for everything.

"Let Mr. Blow and his fellow journalists, pundits and the media in general look to themselves for the failure. Reading their many thousands of words, whether in print or by word of mouth, one would be hard put to find any attempt to educate the public on the most vital facts relating to the political landscape. The 'liberal' organizations with their innumerable e-mails have been no more informative.

In order to keep this post within a reasonable length, I will not set forth any more Letters to the Editor now, but instead will publish additional letters, in a future post.