Letters to the Editor
softdog
Published Letters: 253 Editor's Choice: 10
-
Cracker Please
[Read the article: Election 2008: Declare a forfeit]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]At the end of this essay Gary Kayima makes sarcastic reference to the racist innuendo on Fox News, after writing an entire column which is one long patronizing racist metaphor: "If allowed to proceed, a McCain-Obama matchup will be a hideous reenactment of one of those 105-to-16 games between the Harlem Globetrotters and the Washington Generals, or another one of those interchangeable teams of slow, dorky white guys who stumble around missing set shots while Meadowlark Lemon and his chortling teammates spin the ball on the tips of their fingers, bounce it off their opponents' heads, and soar in with big grins on their faces for uncontested layups." See, Obama's black, so he must be a wily trickster basketball like the Harlem Globetrotters. Is this supposed to be funny Gary?
I don't know which is worse openly racist right wingers, or patronizing racists who take premature victory laps they haven't earned and may even be undoing with their ignorance.
-
I get a different, nastier impression
[Read the article: My failed lesbian romance]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]My take on this is a bit different - Ann Bauer flirted with bisexual/homosexual urges and found it distasteful. But that's okay because it wasn't really attractiton to a woman, just a proclivity for a loser drunks who was an echo of her husband. So her rejection of Gisele, and eventually use of her as essay fodder, is really getting past loser drunks, rather than a failure of nerve or perhaps a wee bit of judgemental attitude.
And like so many essays, there also seems to be an unacknowledged need to justify dishing dirt about a former intimate. It's interesting how everyone in this story has issues which flatters the author in comparison, and make her act of public display more palatable.
Her husband is a lovely man who had to leave because he's an addict. Giselle is a financially irresponsible drunk from a chainsmoking family. Giselle's husband is a pothead who doesn't even notice she's missing. I can buy the first item, but the others seem like a bit of self-excusing embellishment.
For once I'd like to read an author who was upfront about dishing for cash and catharsis.
I'm also a bit tired of Salon's "I almost trangressed" stories. There's the girl who tried to have a one night stand, but didn't. Now we have the lesbian who wasn't. For once I'd like to read a woman who indulged unapoligetically.
-
With Friends Like Joan, Who Needs Republicans?
[Read the article: Pipe down, Cindy McCain]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Wow, so after going on and on and on about sexism in the media in relation to Clinton, Joan busts out CATFIGHT three times - a patronizing cliches with tons of sexist baggage. And no, it doesn't make it okay just because a woman uses it.
Plus the whole "Do they?" is a none too subtle way of saying "Yes, we do!" Instead of writing to defuse, Joan is writing to incite.
She wraps it up with patronizing advice to Obama's campaign concluding wby introducing new anti-Michelle talking points under the facade of concern: "something defective about Michelle Obama, and risks turning her into New Coke."
Joan Walsh: Frenemy, underminer, concern troll. Stop helping.
-
Joan, Heal Thyself
[Read the article: Pipe down, Cindy McCain]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So when other media figures make cracks and cat references about Joan's favorite candidate, it's sexist and there is no excuse.
But when Joan does the exact same thing suddenly it's "This long bitter campaign seriously sapped some folks' sense of humor."
Now, I expect that if any other media figure or commenter had said Joan or woman supporters needed to "get a sense of humor" three weeks ago, folks would be rightfully outraged.
Joan you are a complete and utter hypocrite. You are a prime example of what is wrong with the media - mining anger when it provides pageviews, the evading responsibility and calling people humorless when caught in a contradiction. This is the exact same trick Anne Coulter does.
-
It's not gotcha when it sums up months of bad faith rhetoric
[Read the article: Pipe down, Cindy McCain]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is exactly the sort of slip-up Glenn Greenwald pounces upon when discussing the media's true face. It isn't just gotcha, it's Joan displaying a clear double standard which lays bare her entire lack of ethics.
And still not a word from Joan about the death of Tim Russert.
This is the one thing Joan has done right - as Greenwald pointed out, the excessive coverage was self-indulgent.
I took her reference in this article as a slight and sly play on her supposed hypersensitivity to sexism.
No, it wasn't. There was no context like that at all. She used the word three times with no irony. After months and months of emphasizing - rightly and wrongly - this issue, and using it as a pretext for a lot of smears which didn't have to do with sexism.
It doesn't make sense to slam her one day for being oversensitive and looking for sexism under every rock and then turn around and go, "Aha! Caught you using a sexist term!"
Saying doesn't make it so. Hipocrisy, it's in the dictionary. Trying to dismiss a logical accusation of hipocrisy just by saying "it doesn't make sense" is a Republican tactic.
There is such a thing as context. There is also such a thing as proportion.
This echos what critics often wrote about Joan's columns and many of the articles she chose as editor - which are dishonest and made bad faith arguments far beyond the sexism thing.
Remember Rebecca Traister's evidence free labeling of Obama supporters as sexist cultists? Or the "Obama should be proud of his middle name" essay? Or the recent "Relax liberals, you've already won"? Walsh has made much of Salon undermining, dubious pontificating. This is just the icing on a nasty little cake.