http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/opinion/10brooks.html?scp=1&sq=the%20great%20seduction&st=cse- Hide quoted text -
---------- Forwarded message ----------From: barry levine <levinebar@gmail.com>Date: Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 12:25 PMSubject:: letters@nytimes.com
To the Editor: It would be unfair to require that columnists show an unclouded grasp of the future. A grasp of the past, however seems a reasonable prerequisite. It seems a bit much that it should take Mr. Brooks three decades to notice that age of Reagan, Milken, Boesky and "greed is good" has brought a weakening of business ethics. I look forward to his next column, in which he warns that electing the dilettante heir to a political dynasty as president might lead to an unwinnable war on false pretexts.Barry Levine1142 Brown AveLafayette, CA 94549
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Sunday, June 8, 2008
For Clinton, a Key Group didn't Hold
http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/06/04/obama-says-he-will-cast-a-wide-net-in-vp-search/
---------- Forwarded message ----------From: barry levine <levinebar@gmail.com>Date: Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 9:08 AMSubject: For Clinton, a Key Group didn't HoldTo: letters@nytimes.com
To the Editor:- Hide quoted text - In the current Democratic party system, a candidate would have to win the primaries and caucuses by more than twenty-five percent to secure the nomination without the superdelegates. In the absence of such a landslide, that twenty percent of unpledged delegates are empowered to choose our candidate. Senator Clinton bet on a strategy that required winning less than forty percent of votes in the primaries and caucuses with the superdelegates to make up the margin. Such a reliance on personal loyalties over the will of the People has served our country poorly for seven years now. It is a sign of health that the leaders of the Democratic party have rejected it.Barry Levine1142 Brown AveLafayette, CA 94549
---------- Forwarded message ----------From: barry levine <levinebar@gmail.com>Date: Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 9:08 AMSubject: For Clinton, a Key Group didn't HoldTo: letters@nytimes.com
To the Editor:- Hide quoted text - In the current Democratic party system, a candidate would have to win the primaries and caucuses by more than twenty-five percent to secure the nomination without the superdelegates. In the absence of such a landslide, that twenty percent of unpledged delegates are empowered to choose our candidate. Senator Clinton bet on a strategy that required winning less than forty percent of votes in the primaries and caucuses with the superdelegates to make up the margin. Such a reliance on personal loyalties over the will of the People has served our country poorly for seven years now. It is a sign of health that the leaders of the Democratic party have rejected it.Barry Levine1142 Brown AveLafayette, CA 94549
Governor Declares Drought in California
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/us/05drought.html?scp=2&sq=steinhauer&st=cse- Hide quoted text -
---------- Forwarded message ----------From: barry levine <levinebar@gmail.com>Date: Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 11:36 AMSubject: Governor Declares Drought in CaliforniaTo: letters@nytimes.com
To the Editor: As governor Schwarzenegger works to fix California's water delivery system, he should consider our canals. Whereas open ditches were great technological achievements in the fourth millennium b.c.e, they are an embarrassment today. Half the water that is diverted from the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers is lost to evaporation before it gets to Southern California. Putting a cover on these canals could therefore double the water delivered with no further damage to the river systems. If we were to cover them with photovoltaic arrays, we could even defray some of the cost of pumping that water up over the mountains.Barry Levine1142 Brown AveLafayettte, CA 94549
---------- Forwarded message ----------From: barry levine <levinebar@gmail.com>Date: Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 11:36 AMSubject: Governor Declares Drought in CaliforniaTo: letters@nytimes.com
To the Editor: As governor Schwarzenegger works to fix California's water delivery system, he should consider our canals. Whereas open ditches were great technological achievements in the fourth millennium b.c.e, they are an embarrassment today. Half the water that is diverted from the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers is lost to evaporation before it gets to Southern California. Putting a cover on these canals could therefore double the water delivered with no further damage to the river systems. If we were to cover them with photovoltaic arrays, we could even defray some of the cost of pumping that water up over the mountains.Barry Levine1142 Brown AveLafayettte, CA 94549
Obama's Comments on Israel Stir Criticism in U.S.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/07/us/politics/07obama.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=rohter&st=nyt&oref=slogin
---------- Forwarded message ----------From: barry levine <levinebar@gmail.com>Date: Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 5:56 PMSubject: Obama's Comments on Israel Stir Criticism in U.S.To: letters@nytimes.com
To the Editor: Six years ago, Sari Nusseibeh (chancellor of Bir Zeit University) and Ami Ayalon (retired head of Israel's Shin Bet) issued jointly a sketch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_People%27s_Voice)of an eventual peace settlement between Israel and a new Palestinian state. Although the U.S. media disdained to print or mention it (except to cover Yasir Arafat's rejection of it), it remains a likely model for the eventual peace. What remains unsolved is the path to that peace. That Ayalon/Nusseibeh document posits that there will be two states, and each will claim the open city of Jerusalem as its capital. While it would be unconventional, it is a solution that must be considered. Surely this is a problem that has cried out in vain for innovative thinking for too long. If Mahmoud Abbas rejects senator Obama's speech for endorsing an undivided Jerusalem, he sets himself against the best prospect for peace in the region.Barry Levine1142 Brown AveLafayette, CA 94549
---------- Forwarded message ----------From: barry levine <levinebar@gmail.com>Date: Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 5:56 PMSubject: Obama's Comments on Israel Stir Criticism in U.S.To: letters@nytimes.com
To the Editor: Six years ago, Sari Nusseibeh (chancellor of Bir Zeit University) and Ami Ayalon (retired head of Israel's Shin Bet) issued jointly a sketch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_People%27s_Voice)of an eventual peace settlement between Israel and a new Palestinian state. Although the U.S. media disdained to print or mention it (except to cover Yasir Arafat's rejection of it), it remains a likely model for the eventual peace. What remains unsolved is the path to that peace. That Ayalon/Nusseibeh document posits that there will be two states, and each will claim the open city of Jerusalem as its capital. While it would be unconventional, it is a solution that must be considered. Surely this is a problem that has cried out in vain for innovative thinking for too long. If Mahmoud Abbas rejects senator Obama's speech for endorsing an undivided Jerusalem, he sets himself against the best prospect for peace in the region.Barry Levine1142 Brown AveLafayette, CA 94549
Monday, May 12, 2008
Man in a Black Turban
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/books/review/Glanz-t.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=cockburn&st=nyt&oref=slogin- Hide quoted text -
---------- Forwarded message ----------From: barry levine <levinebar@gmail.com>Date: Mon, May 12, 2008 at 9:04 AMSubject: Man in a Black TurbanTo: letters@nytimes.com
To the Editor: Mr. Glanz's review (Review of Books 5/11/08) tries to explainMoktada al-Sadr's influence while ignoring how he got it. Moktadaal-Sadr took the lead among his generation of Iraqi Shia in April 2003by having his more moderate political rival Sayyid Abdul Majidal-Khoei beaten to death in public. To acknowledge that mr. al-Sadrhas been called a thug is unhelpful without describing how he earnedthat name.Barry Levine1142 Brown AveLafayette, CA 94549
---------- Forwarded message ----------From: barry levine <levinebar@gmail.com>Date: Mon, May 12, 2008 at 9:04 AMSubject: Man in a Black TurbanTo: letters@nytimes.com
To the Editor: Mr. Glanz's review (Review of Books 5/11/08) tries to explainMoktada al-Sadr's influence while ignoring how he got it. Moktadaal-Sadr took the lead among his generation of Iraqi Shia in April 2003by having his more moderate political rival Sayyid Abdul Majidal-Khoei beaten to death in public. To acknowledge that mr. al-Sadrhas been called a thug is unhelpful without describing how he earnedthat name.Barry Levine1142 Brown AveLafayette, CA 94549
Thursday, May 8, 2008
McCain Assures Conservatives of His Stance on Judges
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/us/politics/07mccain.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=bumiller&st=nyt&oref=slogin- Hide quoted text -
---------- Forwarded message ----------From: barry levine <levinebar@gmail.com>Date: Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:21 AMSubject: McCain Assures Conservatives of His Stance on JudgesTo: letters@nytimes.com
To the Editor: When Ms. Bumiller writes: of the "judicial philosophy of President Bush and other recent Republican presidents who sought judges who generally construed laws as narrowly as possible" she parrots the RNC's rhetoric without comparing it to reality. This current court, lead by chief Justice Roberts has been consistently activist. In the Medellin case, they recently went so far as to rule that the supremacy clause of our Constitution does not mean what it says. A narrow construction of the Constitution would agree with two hundred years of jurisprudence that our foreign treaties have the force of law. Under the banner of "conservatism" this administration has turned our legal system over to radicals.Barry Levine1142 Brown AveLafayette, CA 94549
---------- Forwarded message ----------From: barry levine <levinebar@gmail.com>Date: Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:21 AMSubject: McCain Assures Conservatives of His Stance on JudgesTo: letters@nytimes.com
To the Editor: When Ms. Bumiller writes: of the "judicial philosophy of President Bush and other recent Republican presidents who sought judges who generally construed laws as narrowly as possible" she parrots the RNC's rhetoric without comparing it to reality. This current court, lead by chief Justice Roberts has been consistently activist. In the Medellin case, they recently went so far as to rule that the supremacy clause of our Constitution does not mean what it says. A narrow construction of the Constitution would agree with two hundred years of jurisprudence that our foreign treaties have the force of law. Under the banner of "conservatism" this administration has turned our legal system over to radicals.Barry Levine1142 Brown AveLafayette, CA 94549
In One Flaw, Questions on Validity of 46 Judges
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/washington/06bar.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=liptak&st=nyt&oref=slogin- Hide quoted text -
---------- Forwarded message ----------From: barry levine <levinebar@gmail.com>Date: Tue, May 6, 2008 at 10:57 AMSubject: In One Flaw, Questions on Validity of 46 JudgesTo: letters@nytimes.com
To the Editor: Adam Liptak asserts that "Some provisions of the Constitution are open to interpretation, but some are clear." Would that it were so! Scarcely a month ago, the U.S. Supreme court ruled that the Constitution does not mean what it says. Reasonable people may agree that the clause: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby..." gives our foreign treaties the force of law. The U.S. Supreme court however judged in the Medellin case that our foreign treaties have the force of law only if and when Congress enacts legislation to enforce them. When an activist court is in session, everything is up for interpretation.Barry Levine1142 Brown AveLafayette, CA 94549
---------- Forwarded message ----------From: barry levine <levinebar@gmail.com>Date: Tue, May 6, 2008 at 10:57 AMSubject: In One Flaw, Questions on Validity of 46 JudgesTo: letters@nytimes.com
To the Editor: Adam Liptak asserts that "Some provisions of the Constitution are open to interpretation, but some are clear." Would that it were so! Scarcely a month ago, the U.S. Supreme court ruled that the Constitution does not mean what it says. Reasonable people may agree that the clause: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby..." gives our foreign treaties the force of law. The U.S. Supreme court however judged in the Medellin case that our foreign treaties have the force of law only if and when Congress enacts legislation to enforce them. When an activist court is in session, everything is up for interpretation.Barry Levine1142 Brown AveLafayette, CA 94549
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
