Letters to the Editor
softdog
Published Letters: 254 Editor's Choice: 10
-
Readers Being Judgemental Because The Author is As Well
[Read the article: U still up?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think those judging Sarah Hepola harshly for indulging a booty call miss the point, but those defending her do as well.
I think what's provoking people is she slams a practice she clearly accepts in herself, despite feigning slight embarassment. There's a thrill in doing something you think you shouldn't, but Hepola has an undertone of double standard.
It's okay for her to enjoy a booty call, but she acts superior towards her partner because he used text messaging more.
She's boasts about enjoying casual sex AND text messaging then deems it unsavory - mostly for other people who are too shallow about it.
By the end she does admit the good and bad of texting by people other than herself are far from the extremes of her initial disdain. If only she had bothered to note the same holds true for casual sex.
Then maybe the prudes and scolds in the letters might not feel so free to join in on the scorn.
-
A universal bad behavior.
[Read the article: U still up?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It merits repeating to point out Hepola initiated the first text-based booty call, then engaged in another a few days later.
Hepola is vague about the number of texts he sent after, which makes me wonder how often it really was.
A bit of communication would have cleared this up and perhaps those broadcast texts weren't just about booty. It's kind of poor form to put someone off passively, then rip on them for the time it took to get the hint.
These flaws do not excuse the sexism directed at Hepola, but it's maddening when folks of either gender uses incomplete details to put down someone they took pleasure in as cheap and easy.
-
The idea brands define people is itself a marketing gimmick
[Read the article: We are what we buy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not buying it. Manipulating consumers is more often done throug presentation: using $1.99 instead of $2.00, a sale on an item which was never offered at the original price, placing food staples at the back of the store, putting the cheapest product at the bottom of a search result, offering rebates still far abouve the wholesale price, etc.
Even branding itself is first about selling the idea name brand is better made which is why it's more expensive even when the materials are the same). Brand as identity signifier is a secondary concept.
As JanetL puts it: "There's a circular argument here, I think. No matter what you buy, even if it's nothing, it reflects either a choice or a deliberate decision not to care. So in that sense, any choice, no matter how trivial, defines you. But so what? You can't *not* make choices (and if you didn't, that would be a choice, right?). So where does that get us?"
The unspoken product which all advertising, marketing and PR campaigns sell is themselves. They've been overstating their power to influence and offering dubious methods of quantifying it, for at least a century. I call bullshit on a theory which claims the absence of proof is also confirmation.
Sales pitches do have persuasive powers, but there are multiple other factors which the books omit. As another comment put it: "The only reason I buy any brands at all is simply because everything is branded. And I don't buy very much at all, simply because I don't have that much to spend."
To me advertising in it's current form exists as a way to employ a large part of the somewhat creative merchant class. Were these people unable to make an income from persuasion, who knows what notions they might start pitching to the masses.
-
I'm an Obama supporter, but this is media malfeasance
[Read the article: AP: Obama has clinched nomination]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm sorry but journalism is supposed to follow events, not attempt to precede them.
AP seems to have forgotten what a scoop is. It means finding out concrete information before everyone else. It is NOT spreading speculation until in hopes of influencing potential outcomes.
-
Who Cares about Shapiro, I want to read Joan's next rant.
[Read the article: Barack Obama's epic win]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This article is okay, but I'm wondering when Joan Walsh is going to post something.
I mean, you know it is going to be epic, contorted and will either prove what her critics have been saying or defy expectations by being concilatory.
My bet is on the usual fake objectivity with ill concealed deep resentment, maybe even a suggestion McCain should win.
Come on Joan now is your time to shine. You can either rebalance salon or trash it more. Let's roll!
-
Worth repeating.
[Read the article: Barack Obama's epic win]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]To the nuts on both sides, this is worth repeating:
"candidates attack each and pick at their little differences because they have to do something to try to differentiate themselves from opponents who are more alike than a lot of people realize...I'm sure Obama and Clinton piss each other off, but when it comes down to it, they know that this is how the game is played. So no, I don't blame either one of them for "tearing apart the Democratic party."
No, I blame you...the ones who attack the opposing candidates and those candidates' supporters for being too stupid and narrow-minded to think exactly the right way. I think Clinton and Obama have showed each other plenty of respect. You're the ones who haven't.
-- KLeewrite "
Indeed.
To the tiny minority who really believe (rather than just say) it's better to let McCain win than vote for Obama...really? You do realize women are going to be one of top groups harmed the most under 4 more years of Republican white house control? Either you guys are closet Republicans or you don't really care about issues, just surface identity.