Letters to the Editor
Silenced
Published Letters: 1358 Editor's Choice: 75
-
What I want for Christmas
[Read the article: The GOP's crowded closet]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Speaking of closets, I want a Republican politician who's tough on pot to get busted buying weed for a sick family member in a non-medical marijuana state.
It looks like Santa Claus is answering the wishes of liberals these days, so maybe it'll happen.
-
I don't see how this marriage can survive
[Read the article: I've had three miscarriages and my husband won't wear a yarmulke]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Atheists look down on religious believers. They think they're superior. I don't see how this marriage can survive.
Atheists should marry each other. That way they can have a relationship that's truly equal.
About atheist invisibility -- religious people are visible because they believe in community and tradition. What traditions do atheists have? The kind of people attracted to atheism are people who don't feel a need for traditions or community.
So what are they going to do to be visible, other than intrude on the community of religious believers and show themselves by refusing to join in?
That's a negative kind of visibility. The husband wants to be visible by using his power to invalidate other people by taking advantage of their community while refusing to honor their tradition.
I think the LW is just asking for trouble by trying to breed with this man or for this man.
Let him find an atheist to marry so that he's never again placed in the terrible position of having to wear a yarmulka to a synagogue merely for the sake of the highly stressed out, grieving woman he's supposed to love.
-
This would be funny were it not for the drug snitch agreements that every academic receiving federal funds has directly or indirectly signed
[Read the article: Some advice for the newly academic, from the Notorious B.I.G.]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Any academic who receives money from the federal government has agreed directly or indirectly to a federal "drug free workplace."
That federal drug free workplace agreement consists of more than just a promise not to do drugs at work. It also contains a snitch clause where you and everyone covered by the grant is obligated under severe penalties for non-compliance to snitch all of your pot-smoking graduate students out to your grant officer, providing the grant officer with their names and social security numbers.
I never heard of any academic refusing to sign this agreement, like academics used to refuse to sign loyalty oaths back in the sixties.
So any academic who thinks he or she is cool enough to pretend to be a gangster is really just a wankster, and a snitch waiting to happen.
Put that in your B.I.G. and smoke it.
-
I wrote a little rap
[Read the article: Some advice for the newly academic, from the Notorious B.I.G.]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You're not a gansgter.
You're just a wankster.
You sign agreements,
but you don't read them.
Now you're a snitch,
the gov'mint's b*itch.
Ain't that just rich?
But you don't know it,
so you don't show it.
You're think you're cool.
But you've been fooled.
Time to get schooled.
-
You homeboys better read your drug free agreements carefully
[Read the article: Some advice for the newly academic, from the Notorious B.I.G.]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I only read this agreement once, because I only applied for an NSF grant once. As soon as I read the agreement, I decided not to apply for another grant ever again, because I couldn't agree to follow all of the requirements honestly.
As far as I recall, you've agreed not only to inform on your drug-taking employees and colleagues, providing their SSNs to the feds, but also to actively propagandize FOR the War on Drugs.
It's just possible that this Biggie crack commandment BS could invalidate your federal grant, because this is NOT supporting the War on Drugs.
When you sign the agreement, you also agree that if you are found in violation of the agreement, you will give back the entire amount of your grant, and pay a $25,000 fine on top of that.
I think you're also prohibited from receiving any federal funding in the future.
So everyone covered by a federal grant -- go back and read the fine print in your Drug Free Workplace agreement.
It's possible that this idiotic gangster rap posing could actually put you in violation of your agreement.
I haven't heard of anyone yet who's been penalized for violating the terms of the agreement. But there's always a first time.
-
@mjwycha, congratulations
[Read the article: This weekend on Salon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Perhaps Salon could allow registered users to give a thumbs up or a thumbs down to letters. If a letter receives, say, four or five thumbs down that letter gets "hidden."
So five Salon readers should get to decide which letters I'm allowed to read?
Democratized intolerance! Right on!
I'm starting to think I have an ethical duty now to stop reading Salon.
Salon silences the cannabis news, preferring to promote alcohol, crystal meth, and the 10 Commandments for dealing crack cocaine.
You know, I keep telling myself I HAVE TO VOTE DEMOCRAT TO SAVE THE WORLD.
But congratulations -- your idea here just made me feel like there NOTHING that can ever save this country from itself.
-
I mean think about this idea for a second, @mjwycha
[Read the article: This weekend on Salon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Suppose I didn't like you and wanted to silence you. I could get four friends to register for Salon letters and together we could have every single letter you've ever written hidden.
People always think these policies will be applied to other people. But they could just as easily be applied to the people who think them up.
-
This is Our Very Special Episode?
[Read the article: Opus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What is wrong with Joan? Has she been dipping the Salon Wine Club too much these days?
Maybe it's my Asperger's. I don't know. I don't understand the joke here. I understand the political commentary but where is the part that's supposed to make me laugh?
It looks like the butt of the joke is tribal people.
The butt of the joke can't be Islam, because this kind of dress is only part of tribal Islam. Urbanized Muslims don't dress this way.
So I guess the joke must be to make fun of all tribal people for being ignorant and tribal?
Then let's make fun of Native Americans next, because many of them insist on dressing in tribal costumes too.
This is a big lesson to me: just because newspapers censor a strip doesn't mean the strip is actually worth reading.
I was looking forward to something screamingly funny. I'm going downstairs to get the comics page.
I hope Doonsebury can do better.
-
Oh yeah oh yeah
[Read the article: Opus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Look at how many people are struggling to interpret the strip and explain why it's funny.
When you see that many people trying explain a joke, it means the joke wasn't funny.