Letters to the Editor
Gams on Glass
Published Letters: 284 Editor's Choice: 6
-
Clapton is a dirtbag
[Read the article: Clapton is not God]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Look: I like a good deal of Claptons music although much of Cream was more the ingenuity of his bandmates with Clapton as the celebrity add-on. However, his 'humble' schtick is just that: Schtick. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of his life would relaise he is a serial SOB with a massive ego and little disregard for anyone else. Perhaps a young man may do foolish things, but this young man kept being an ass well into his old age. Not that you can feel that sorry for the likes of Patti Harrison (heart broken by a junkie when you knew he was a junkie when you left your husband for him?), although Geore is another story.
Not that I care anywho, but it is pretty clear to me, and this is the punchline: Having watched Johnny Cash, Ray Charles... Tina Turner, and whoever else, cement their legacies with blockbuster (and award winning) Hollywood productions, Clapton wants his, being the selfish, self-aggrandizer he is (Cary tennis might recognise this aspect of the Addict as Person).
This whole woe-is-me and my millionaire life, self-analytic book charade is a desperate appeal for his Big Movie, indoubitably to be called CLAPTON, in big letters (although I would suggest I Feel Free as a more 'liberating' sounding title, even if it would take from the Cream days when he wasn't the main man.
-
MALE CIRCUMCISION
[Read the article: Female genital mutilation is like losing a limb?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Pay no mind the the anti male circumcision loonies. It is a freakish cult comprised of an amalgam of overly protective mother's to be and, more notably, borderline men who have erroneous decided to blame their control freakishness or psychological unbalances on the trauma of circumcision. These people are loonier than an ex-hippy who has just accepted Jesus as his/her personal saviour.
-
Completely silly
[Read the article: Once and for all, proof that Macs are cheaper than PCs]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The old 'The New Republic Fallacy'... or magazine version of the Big Lie: Not only is what you thought not quite exactly correct, but it is far the opposite of what you thought.
I have plenty of experience with Macs and PCs. I have drifted further into PCs as my work has required but the girlfriend still has her Macs. My own issues with Mac has been less developed development software available, but that is ever changing -- it has simply become a necessity for me to be PC most of the time. But ass I said, the girly girl is a steadfast Maccer.
Nevermind the complete nonsense that selling PCs factored into your economic model -- the market for affordable used Macs exists BECAUSE Macs are expensive.
And Macs really do last longer necessarily. I kept a Dell PC laptop up and running for 6-7+ years until the screen finally came loose, and did so due to my own knowledge of what to do with the terminal. The girlfreind, a bit less savvy has a desktop mac (pre-new core that runs at the spead of a glacier, and you can correct me if I am wrong but, even given that MS OS memory management was meant for floppy disks, the options for upkeep on the Mac are less user friendly and functional that that on MS.
There is also the peripherals problem. While there may be plenty of Mac knockoffs for a variety of devices, the girlfriend spilled coffee all over her keyboard, wrecking it. The replacement cost for PCs we know is minimal but the replacement cost direct from MAC was around 50 dollars I think.
Mac has a fine system that has left behind the shame of the Power PC era, and the OS looks better and better, but your logic is completely silly accross the board.
-
Free cheap software
[Read the article: Once and for all, proof that Macs are cheaper than PCs]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I forgot to mention this point! Software 'borrowing' is difficult. However, as an industry guy, perhaps Mr. Manjoo would be assassinated if he freely discussed such items in his articles.
I'd also like to add/ re: my above post: Salon REALLY needs to feature an 'edit post' feature as I made a host of errors. Basic forum share/freeware has this....
-
The excerpt is jibberish
[Read the article: Worst. President. Ever.]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am a great admirer of Mr. Stiglitz's work over the years, particularly in concise nature of his critique of the IMF and World Bank development programs, which he oversaw.
However, there is a fallacy of logic here: As a result that Bush's tax cuts were not good stimulus, "Therefore, the job of economic stimulation fell to the Federal Reserve Board"... This is not an A -> B implication whatsoever.
In fact, some may recall, at the time, many an economic analyst commented that the fed was too frequently interfering in interest rates. While the full effects of this could not and would not be known, there was suggestion that the Fed was attempting to drive the market far too aggressively. Ostensibly, no doubt, Bush would have approved, but if the swine at the Fed were cowtowed by the administration and not their knowledge, the crisis as described here, a closed cause and effect system, was the province of the Fed.
I am disappointed that Mr. Stiglitz saw a chance to place all the blame eggs in the President's already (rightfully) cumbersome basket. As an overseer of the frequently disasterous Structural Adjustment Programs, Stigitz is well aware that economic dogmatists make their fair of horrible mistakes intentionally.