Letters to the Editor
JackSparx
Published Letters: 421 Editor's Choice: 16
-
War casualties in PA
[Read the article: Barack Obama in suspended animation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One aspect of Pennsylvania that the media (particularly an elite source like Salon) ignores is that Pennsylvania is basically ground zero for soldier casualties, often coming from rural areas. Obama seems to be making the right speaking points on the fraught issues of whether the soldiers died in vain. The Clintons, on the other hand, can say they made big profits during the war years. Significant amounts of that profit actually came from that region. I'm not sure why people think those profits are a positive for the Clintons among these voters that have made up her base in PA.
-
Good question, though
[Read the article: McCain's "triumph" over a nonexistent heckler]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've always thought the whole school assembly backdrop was a bit exploitive of students, no matter who does it. Attendance should definitely be fully voluntary, opt-in not opt-out.
I'd also give the vote to 16 and 17 year olds, though. They should get a chance to vote on the wars they will have to fight.
-
I don't like the term "deathwatch" but...
[Read the article: Barack Obama in suspended animation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think Clinton will concede after Pennsylvania. We're looking at days, not months. I think Obama will win by a point or two, dozens of supers will come out for him, and the lady in the pantsuits will sing.
-
Harkin for Obama?
[Read the article: Barack Obama in suspended animation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That could matter indirectly for PA if it's true. Harkin is probably one of the most labor-identified senators, and probably would affect labor leaders in PA.
-
No one will read this letter.
[Read the article: Why Hillary Clinton should be winning]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But just thought I'd throw it on the pile.
-
Hillary Clinton is a war-time profiteer
[Read the article: Cashing in on the Clinton campaign]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And Salon complains about Penn's campaign profiteering?
-
Will Walsh also outlaw the word "hypocrite"?
[Read the article: Thank you, Rush Limbaugh!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Walsh isn't bothered by the Clintons wartime profits.
Walsh loves race-baiting Obama
She blames Penn for Clinton's war vote
The Clintons foul language and behavior is just fine with her, because they are elites.
But hey, let a regular person call Clinton a whore, and suddenly Walsh finds her dormant conscience.
Walsh is a moral fake.
-
OK Let's play who is the sexist.
[Read the article: Thank you, Rush Limbaugh!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One person calls a powerful, filthy rich politician a whore.
Another person, that powerful filthy rich politician, votes to kill hundreds of thousands of people, including women.
Who is the sexist?
Joan Walsh calls for the head of the regular person who used a cuss word.
Joan Walsh would like to see the elite politician elected as President of the United States, and punish anyone who would insult her.
Perhaps Walsh is the purveyor of obscenity.
-
It's WAR not "WHORE" that's obscene
[Read the article: Thank you, Rush Limbaugh!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Challenge to Joan Walsh: Make a list of acceptable insults for female politicians.
Bascially you're saying insults are OK for male politicians, but not female. So either make a list of pungent insults that are OK for female politicians, or defend your sexism. The last thing we need is a whole class of powerful politicians who cannot be insulted!
You know, Walsh's self-serving prissiness does steam me, because it has to do with manipulation through language. The irony for me is that I very rarely actually use "whore" to call out any woman. When I do, it's usually softened by at least an adjective "corporate whore" or in conjunction with a male "the Clintons are corporate whores." And I far prefer finding more creative epithets. I tried floating "Hillary Antoinette" which cracks me up, but no one else. "Profiteer" seems accurate and strong for the Clintons speech-whoring to the foreign and corporate elites who love this war. But I still think that ANYONE delivering standup should be able to use the word whore, and Walsh's decision to scapegoat a woman for using the word seems calculated and vile.
Salon was late to the Ferraro racism story. Koppleman wrote a far longer screed about why Salon ignored the story than Salon dedicated to the story. It was THE SAME LETTERWRITERS that Walsh hates who pointed out the racism, and it was Greenwald, not Walsh who understood why Bill's "Jesse Jackson" statement was baiting. But then again, Walsh herself is a champion race-baiter.
The difference between Walsh and me? I figure Walsh for an unapologetic elitist, a sexist, and an unconscious racist. But I'd still buy her a beer. But Walsh wants to give the boot to anyone who doesn't agree with her own form of bigotry.
I think that in two weeks that nasty Clinton will have dropped out and we can all get back to being normal. And then those who really care can start thinking about how to make the Obama administration the most progressive ever for women and men, and people of every background.
-
Let's make a deal!
[Read the article: Thank you, Rush Limbaugh!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]1. Hillary Clinton finally apologizes for her war vote. The Clintons donate every penny of the vast fortune they made from the war years to veteran rehabilitation and Iraqi victims of the Bush-Clinton war. And no, Hillary, you can't stash it in Clinton-controlled foundations.
2. Joan Walsh, Bill Clinton, and Geraldine Ferraro apologize for their race-baiting.
3. Randi Rhoades apologizes for ever using the word "whore."
Fair enough?
-
Votes vs words
[Read the article: Thank you, Rush Limbaugh!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Things that are utterly bizarre to me:
Randi Rhodes has probably voted for a lot of women in her life. I know that I have. I prefer women when confronted by two good candidates in a primary. I'll bet this Rhodes character does too. But the WORD "whore" means more to Walsh than the REALITY of supporting women and women's causes. In Walsh's elitist bizarro feminism words>votes.
Another bizarro stance: Clinton voted to KILL women. Don't lecture me on the unintended collateral of war, that she didn't know. WAR IS BAD FOR WOMEN. Particularly bad. In the whole time I've read Salon, I've seen ONE piece about the particular burden of this war on women. That is a legitimate story that should be covered regularly, but Walsh suppresses it. Why? For Walsh WORDS are worse than BULLETS. It's more important to get Clinton elected than remind readers of what her war vote actually meant.
Why are so many people fooled by Walsh's blatant elitism and self-interest? She doesn't care all that much women per se. She fumes about insults to powerful white women, like herself.