Letters to the Editor
Gams on Glass
Published Letters: 279 Editor's Choice: 6
-
Murtha
[Read the article: Murtha endorses Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Disappointing but not a surprise. Clinton does well and gets support in traditional Party Machine areas, PA, and especially Phillly, being such. We can see this being exacerbated by the endorsements she recieved from Murtha, Gov. Rendell (albeit in an even-handed sort of way) and from the former and current mayors of Philadelphia. The last two, are incidentally african american, and while one deoes not expect Mayor Nutter's 'contribution' to suddenly overwhelm all popularity of Obama's campaign, the collective effect ot ALL these endorsements is a slow syphoning-off off -- a person there, a person here -- which cumulatively does have an impact.
-
Nutter
[Read the article: Murtha endorses Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Aye, he is indeed named 'Michael Nutter'...
And a little story from real life about 'politics of change' fo the people here accusing Hillary of being the advocate for 'politics as usual' and Obama being Mr. Change:
IN Philly, Nutter was the politician of change. He ran against Rep. Chaka Fattah, among other 'party' democrats. All manner of hipster came out pumping their fists for him.
A year later and still no sign of the radical change.
Now, I know it's your rhetoric, but surely you people don't think Obama is really some sort of bureaucratic jacobin...? He's a product of the same Party Machine, and Chicago is one of the finest.
-
what a jerk
[Read the article: Murtha endorses Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"maybe just get them out of the party altogether? They're so embarrassing. Do we really need people who didn't go to college in the party, after all?"
Wow... that's pretty awful... I'd rather see the likes of you out of the party.
Secondly, it seems you know f-all about PA. And I am not sure that crying racism EVERY time Obama loses is exactly the politics of change.. after all, he has won many states.
-
BillHelm
[Read the article: Murtha endorses Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Regarding your point on homosexuality and Obama's religion:
Actually, UCC doctrine is FOR recognization of gay rights under the law and in the public sphere.
Just you know... I don't care much for religion, but you should at least do the minimum research before getting all aggressive about something.
-
Causes and effects
[Read the article: Say "nyet" to Russia's vodka for ladies]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One must treat the CAUSES of mass alcoholism, much in the same way with crime and poverty. Any number of Northern European countries feature drinking as a frequent part of life, but the relative lack of poverty decreases potential social disenfranchisement.
The attack like this on Marketing as a tool has always been rather suspect, and nothing has been proven regarding it's impact on actual addiction.
But similar rates of alcoholism can be found in african mining and factory populations, in the notorious shebeens.
To make change here, significant attempts to alleviate the, to use a much maligned term, 'root causes'.
-
feminization
[Read the article: The funny thing about black men in dresses]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The suggestion that black men in dresses is an attempt to neutralize black male masculinity, i.e. feminize it, is INSANE. It is actual insanity. Drag is not uncommon comedic repertoire around the globe. Monty Python's vicious bag-weilding ladies come to mind.
Really the debate has alot more to do with what the black community sees or wants to see in 'Their Men' and is about black obsession with one's OWN masculinity. Despite all the post-modernish and existentialist runinations that black men in drag is a sort of American Neo-Colonialism, A Psychological Thriller. Perhaps there is a bit of what might be called paranoia in such sentiments: that anything offensive has a root in American (and Worldwide) anti-black racism. For example: the supposition -- was it Welsing? -- that black men calling each other 'baby' was indicative of internalized inferiority complex instilled by white supremacy.
With all this talk, I have to think some of this has to do with homo-phobia whithin the so-called black community. Any egress into depictions of Black Men as fundamentally hetero-sexual and masculine is presumed to be an assault on mind and sensibility. Even better is the depiction of black men as raw and hyper masculine, and even though such depictions then represent him as being honorable and just, that masculinity, itself, is prerequisite seems, if anything, to be a neo-colonial wound in its own turn.
-
Two conclusions?
[Read the article: Is Briana Waters a terrorist?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A) I hate radical environmentalists. Not fewer than 3 of them have said to me they think cutting down trees is akin to murder because each tree has a soul. Dying in a scum jail-cell with your fist raised and a note about saving the bears... what an idiot. The whole rhetoric is pathetic with an utter lack of self-awareness how important these people want to feel
B) The very attempt to legally define 'terrorism' is insidious in the manner in which it can be manipulated. If you murder, or are an accomplice to the murder of 1000 people, then surely you can be charged within the statutes we have for murder or 'aiding an abetting'. Deciding what happens to those who act in tandem with the actual murderers, such as the accomplice who provides them with explosives can be charged on their own criminal merits. Using 'terrorism' as a legal descriptor is unnecessary and dangerous and hence there ought be no discussion about whether what they did is terrorism as opposed to some youth in North Philadelphia who burns down an abandoned building. both are arson, albeit with differentials in the degree of destruction, all of which is or can be accounted for under the requisite laws.
-
Assyrian
[Read the article: Why John Edwards hasn't endorsed Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"This blog post could just as easily have been titled "Why John Edwards hasn't endorsed Clinton," but of course, it isn't, because it's written by Joan Walsh."
No. No it couldn't. The bit was about what Obama did wrong given an obvious positive. In fact, the presupposition is that Edwards WANTED Obama from the get go, and that a face-to-face meeting dissueded him on personal grounds. Given your logic the article could have been title "Why Edwards hasn't endorsed Lyndon LaRouche" and gone on about how Edwards read the a LaRouche pamphet he found on the floor of a train and found it moronic.
Your endorsement of your candidate (and mine by the way) approaches vapid hyperbole and even conspiracy theory hysteria.