Letters to the Editor

Letters posted here are associated with the following Salon Premium Member:

The Fool

Published Letters: 750     Editor's Choice: 4

  • Nuke This

    [Read the article: Alito, the nuclear option and the Democrats' thin hopes]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    Why shouldn't the Democrats go nuclear? Worst case scenario, Alito is confirmed which happens anyway. Best case scenario, Alito's nomination is thwarted. Another good scenario, the Republicans are revelaed as extremists for cheating and going nuclear.

    Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose. What do we have to lose?

  • Don't Buy Into The GOP/Media Frame

    [Read the article: Reid declares victory in Senate closure]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    Reid didn't close the Senate down, he got the doors to the Senate chamber closed.

    CNN is framing this as closing down the Senate, which is reminiscent of when the GOP House literally shut down the government back in 1994 -- a much different, much more radical, and very unpopular move.

  • Ugly?

    [Read the article: Welcome to the war]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    Where's the ugliness in saying "I told you so"? I don't see it. There was a debate. One side lied, was wrong, and tried to demonize the other side. And now that other side is supposedly ugly if they simply say, correctly, that we told them so? Why is that ugly? Because its not magnaminous? Is there duty to be magnaminous? Especially when the other side called us traitors and lied? I don't think so. You had it right the first time Grieve. This is all about minimal standards of accountability.

  • Hah!

    [Read the article: Forget the Haight and Woodstock]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    Damn those hippies! If they didn't create a perfect utopia, then it was all for nought. And if some porn stars living in the same city had a violent episode? Then it was clearly all wrong from the start.

  • Ridiculous

    [Read the article: Duke women not innocent]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    "I don't know enough of the facts to opine on whether that phrase will be read aloud by jury foremen. I do know enough to say it is a stretch to use the term "innocent" to describe the men of Duke lacrosse. Hiring strippers, excessive alcohol use, disorderly public conduct -- those aren't activities one generally describes as innocent."

    Don't be an ass, Sweeney. You know that "innocent" in this context means innocent of rape charges -- not innocent of being in college.

  • Get Real Armstrong

    [Read the article: Going beyond God]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    "And some of these people -- not all, by any means -- seem to be secular fundamentalists. They have as bigoted a view of religion as some religious fundamentalists have of secularism. We have too much dogmatism at the moment. Take Richard Dawkins, for example. He did a couple of religious programs that I was fortunate enough to miss. It was a very, very one-sided view."

    What a crock. Dawkins is the exact opposite of a bigot or a dogmatist. His views are not based on prejudice but on judicious review of the evidence and a laudable commitment to rationality over superstition.

    Armostrong strikes me as an overzealous phony. She has some deep need to have religious views but she struggles with the fact that religion is obvious bunk.

    She also makes up lame excuses such as her claim that the afterlife is a red herring. A red herring? I have a close member of my family who is dying of cancer. Tell her that the afterlife is a red herring.

  • For Real?

    [Read the article: The suicide mission, or Katherine Harris runs for the U.S. Senate]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    You have to be kidding. A woman with as much integrity as Katherine Harris? Pshaw!

  • Doubleplus good!

    [Read the article: Recapping our top story, up is the new down]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    Down the memory hole again, I see.

  • Oh My!

    [Read the article: Hitler, Stalin and ... Joe Lieberman?]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    You worry too much Tim. Stalin famously said that its the one who counts the votes who has the power, and that was that bitch Katherine Harris in 2000. That bitch was instrumental in stealing a presidential election, one of the worst crimes against our democracy ever committed. She should be jailed. Dean did nothing wrong by calling it like it is. If the shoe fits...

  • Lame, Very Lame

    [Read the article: The believer]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    Collins has gone from a schoolboy disbelief in god to a schoolboy belief in god.

    The man needs to learn a little philosophy before pontificating about deities. You'll notice how he repatedly talks about a "need" to believe in god rather than a reason. He talks about how religion helped people through illnesses. But of course no one denies that religion can function as a crutch. We just deny that its a reliable way to find truth.

    Collins said re C.S. Lewis, "As I read his arguments about the Moral Law -- the knowledge of right and wrong, which makes no sense from the perspective of basic evolution and biology"

    Actually evolutionary psychologists have a very good explanation for this. He also thinks that evolution can't explain altruism but there are well known arguments for kin altruism and reciprocal altruism which he just seems to ignore.

  • Lamont Doing Better Than It Looks

    [Read the article: The Lieberman earthquake]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    As all polling insiders know, Lamont being up 51-45 against a well known incumbent like Lieberman means he's really up something like 54-46.

  • Dyin' Ain't Much Of A Livin', Boy

    [Read the article: Demonizing fellow Democrats]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    Strong-on-security? Acting like a pussy and jumping on Bush's bandwagon because you're afraid of being called weak-on-security doesn't make you strong-on-security. When Bush's bandwagon goes over a fucking cliff, that REALLY doesn't make you strong-on-security. Being strong-on-security means you support actions that increase our security. Bush's faith-based Iraq adventure has harmed our security. Hence, people who supported that policy are weak-on-security, not strong.

    Here's what's really going on. Lieberputz is personally insecure. When Republicans attack him for being weak-on-security he feels ashamed and weak -- i.e. insecure. By going along with the Republicans, he relieves this cause of his anxiety. Its his own security he is worried about, not that of the United States. If he really cared about the security of the United States, he would have changed his view on Iraq now that all this new data shows his original position was wrong. But Lieberputz is all about the security of Lieberputz, not the United States. If he backs down, Bill Kristol will call him names. Lieberputz is willing to trade off some real national security of the U.S. in order to avoid being called names by Bill Kristol.

    If Lieberputz really were strong-on-security, I would support him.

  • Ain't Gonna Happen

    [Read the article: Exploiting religious divisions for political gain]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    I disrespect Lieberman but I'm no anti-semite. And I doubt most Jews will fall for this phony argument. They're too smart to fall for bogus propaganda and have too long of a tradition of concern for social justice to join with the unjust liars of the Republican party.

Most Active Stories

Read More

Letters Help

Daily Delivery

Salon headlines in your mailbox