Letters to the Editor
godsbedamned
Published Letters: 7
-
Individualizing a social problem
[Read the article: Hey, skinny bitch!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree with many points made in this article. But, it seems like there are only two points of criticism for Klausner: mostly that the authors are deceptive and less so that this is perpetuating beauty culture, shaming women, etc. I agree that these are worthwhile points. But, this piece settles for individualizing a social problem, villifying the two authors. I agree, they sound contemptuous. But, wouldn't more context be helpful, for example, about Peta's sexism, beauty culture, etc.? Surely, the problem is larger. Also, there's something implicit in Klausner's article -- at least to me -- about vegan advocates being awful, rigid people.
-
Olbermann's awful, too
[Read the article: David Shuster, scapegoat?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Olbermann's misogyny is also blatant. The left is so taken with his rants against the Bush administration and the war, in general, they hold him up as a progressive. The comments he makes about many famous women in the media are blatant woman-hating. Ugh.
-
Author views civil unions as same as marriage
[Read the article: The gay marriage slump]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There's an assumption running throughout this article that civil unions are a form of marriage. Even the title of the article, which probably wasn't written by the author but is nonetheless on the same page, suggests this ("Same-sex couples fought for the right to wed. So why are they deciding not to get hitched?") Um...as far as I now, there's only one state in the union where they have the right to get "hitched."
The author of this piece, no doubt, thinks she's pro-gay rights. But, reinforcing the commonly held assumption that civil unions are a step towards marriage actually does the work of preventing social change.
-
He didn't look great to me
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's Texas-size moment ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]He talks about change but all of his policy positions are full of 10 point lists and flat partisan position statements that are no different from any other candidate. It just amazes me this cult of personality thing he's cultivated, where people from the Kennedys to cable hotheads, jump on the bandwagon just so they can be associated, for their own selfish reasons, with a "winner." (Teddy wants young people, lest they not be indoctrinated already, to be drawn into the glory of his better brothers...how dare Hillary for forgetting to lionize JFK for sheperding civil rights policy.) As others have pointed out elsewhere, what Axelrod has crafted is absolutely brilliant: someone in whom people can see whatever they want. That he has no real substance, that he awkwardly stammers through a debate, is actually ideal. I can't wait for the bubble to burst.
-
Hillary should stay in
[Read the article: Should Hillary Clinton drop out?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think she should stay the course. The media bias against her is incredible. I think she did well in the debate.
-
Crash
[Read the article: Was Obama's speech enough?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm troubled, here, by the praise for Obama being able, the author asserts, to move toward racial harmony while Wright is criticized for being pessimistic. Why is there no room for someone who isn't appeasing? This reminds me of how much and why Crash was praised: because it catered to the view that whites and blacks equally suffer under racial prejudice and that 'we must engage' if we are to move forward. I don't support Obama -- here, i think he's being incredibly disingenuous -- but, I'm really troubled by how most people seem to flat out condemn Wright as a racist and someone who's destructive.
-
Dawnt's article is interesting, but still pandering
[Read the article: Some thoughts about West Virginia ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've gotten through most, but not all of Dawnt's article (my disclaimer). I think she or he makes a lot of good points, but, it definitely seems apologetic. it still holds onto the view that people "there" are different from the places that kossacks live. That is, it holds in place, rather than rupture, the existing stereotype that people in WV and other mountain states ARE actually backwards. It seems nice that the writer mentions how poor people have less access to information UNTIL you realize that the writer isn't taking to task Kossacks for being classist. Also, the writer goes on to say that "give them time, they [these voters] can be educated and see the light that is Obama." Can't these voters be educated and informed enough to make good choices now? Isn't the writer being reductive...and racist? Why do we assume mountain folks are more racist than enlightened Kossacks?