Santorum Makes Case for Religion in Public Sphere

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/us/politics/santorum-makes-case-for-religion-in-public-sphere.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: barry levine 
Date: Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 9:43 AM
Subject: re: Santorum Makes Case for Religion in Public Sphere
To: letters@nytimes.com


To the Editor:

   More than one speech in 1960 separates senator Santorum from president Kennedy. Between the two stands the Enlightenment.  President Kennedy embraced our Founding Fathers' vision of a world in which individuals "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable Rights" have power (including he power to form a legitimate government) and authority (including the authority to question received wisdom).  Senator Santorum offers to take us back to the seventeenth century, in which power and authority belonged to institutions instead.  He has a right to his beliefs and a right to express them in speech and in print. We the people reserve the right to reject them.

Barry Haskell Levine

In Republican Race, a New Breed of Superdonor

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/us/politics/in-republican-race-a-new-breed-of-superdonor.html

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: barry levine 
Date: Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 7:27 AM
Subject: re: In Republican Race, a New Breed of Superdonor
To: letters@nytimes.com


To the Editor:

    Our Supreme Court has established that political donations are "symbolic speech" and as such are constitutionally protected. The right to Free Speech itself however is not absolute. There are speech acts (e.g. "fighting words" and "incitement to riot") that have been found to not be protected. What then would we say of a donor who gave indiscriminately to all nominees in a single race? Is the message only that she/he wants the eventual winner to feel indebted to her/him? Is that a case in which the "symbolic speech" of the donation is not constitutionally protected?

   There are a few in this country who would be happy to see our public servants responsive to their donors, rather than to their constituents. If they have their way in this one, they'll have their way in everything, and government "for the People" will have perished from this earth.

Barry Haskell Levine

WikiLeaks, a Postscript

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/opinion/keller-wikileaks-a-postscript.html

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: barry levine <levinebar@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 12:39 PM
Subject: re: WikiLeaks, a Postscript
To: letters@nytimes.com


To the Editor:

  Before we accept Bill Keller's posturing as the voice of responsible journalism, we should remember that he has no standing here. It was Mr. Keller who quashed the news of illegal wiretaps in 2004. The American electorate learned that one of the candidates for the presidency of the United States was engaged in a criminal enterprise only after he had been returned to office. That's not how a Free Press operates,and that's not how a real democracy functions.

Barry Haskell Levine

Scandal May Topple Party Official in China

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/world/asia/scandal-may-end-rise-of-bo-xilai-party-official-in-china.html

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: barry levine
Date: Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 8:28 AM
Subject: re: Scandal May Topple Party Official in China
To: letters@nytimes.com


To the Editor:
   It is not clear whether the authors are chronic amphetamine abusers or merely sleep-deprived. Neither can the reader tell what is the "scandal" of the article's title.  After wading through two full columns of this scattered raving, any reasonable reader would have doubts that there's any news story here at all. Certainly in its current form, it's not "fit to print".
Barry Haskell Levine