Letters to the Editor
Machete
Published Letters: 45 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Garry's right
[Read the article: Opus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not a vet and I don't know whether Garry is one. It's irrelevant. His point is correct. Any longtime reader of Breathed remembers his edgier work, remembers his originality. I wasn't all that excited about his return because his work had already degraded in his prior published work.
But that being said: Garry, Mr. Breathed's work is pap but he's entitled to make a living and if people like it and that's all he's content to do, then nuff said. I don't respect it but I won't begrudge or judge someone for getting a smile from it. Dilbert's boss is a twit, Garfield hates mondays, Cathy can't find a bathing suit that fits, Dagwood sure loves that couch! All strips have their tropes.
I prefer Rueben Bolling's work, which I both respect and enjoy and look forward to reading. I just happened to read this strip in a moment of boredom having dismissed Breathed long ago. It lived down to my expectations. But I wouldn't go so far as to disparage those who like it. To each his own, right?
-
Did I miss something?
[Read the article: Video snapshot: Fred Thompson]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First, let me state that I am against any constitutional amendment of any sort concerning gay marriage.
Now, if I'm not mistaken, he didn't propose banning gay marriage. What he said was that he would push for an amendment that would allow states not to recognize marriages between gays unless the state legislature passed a law recognizing gay marriage, which apparently would be the second requirement (i.e. that judges would not be able to overturn state bans).
Now, there's all sorts of problem with that but it does a disservice to misstate his carefully worded position. Or did I miss something?
-
a response to anonymous
[Read the article: Opus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A counter to Anonymous:
First, I'm not a teacher.
Second, teachers work with what they are given. They are there to primarily to educate children, and hopefully teach one or two to think. They are not there to raise them. That job is the responsibility of the parents.
Third, teachers work much longer hours than bankers who can leave their work at the office. Teachers must grade on their own time (or did you think that planning period really provides adequate time?) and prep on their own time and supplement on their own dime.
Fourth, two months off? Most teachers have to use that period to supplement their income which has not kept pace with inflation in real dollars. Besides which, you try working with children 5 days a week for moths on end and see how much downtime you need.
Teachers taught you. Too bad no one taught you a sense of gratitude.
-
Getting to the point
[Read the article: Opus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So going past the lack of originality of the framework for strip, let's look at what BB wants to say. He's criticizing something as impotent. Specifically he appears to be going after centrist democrats as capitulating in the name of compromise. Since Hillary represents the centrist block of the democratic party, he helpfully puts her in the first panel.
And he asks if this is what liberalism has wrought: political relativism. He seems to be taking the stance of a disillusioned liberal and advancing an absolutist stance. Right is right, wrong is wrong.
So the question is, is he correct? Is centrist philosophy what has made democrats impotent? Would Hillary be an impotent president? Should democrats be taking a strong liberal stance on the issues, the risk of being painted pro-tax, obstructionist, etc. be damned?
-
PLEASE GO HERE
[Read the article: Kansas O'Flaherty ... Secret Agent]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I haven't commented on KoF and won't waste my worthwhile time doing so. What I want to do is point to a recent discovery of a treasure trove of material of the quality Salon should be endeavoring to carry:
http://www.transmission-x.com/
Pay particular attention to:
Kukuburi
The Abominable Charles Christopher
Sin Titulo
But all strips are different and unique and have something of value to offer readers.
And no I don't work for them or know any of the artists. Just passing along the artwork of excellent illustrators/writers that Salon would be lucky to have grace its webpages.
-
the question about the eagle ...
[Read the article: Kansas O'Flaherty ... Secret Agent]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]2) The eagle emerging from the broken egg was depicted as some 40 feet in the air. And that was the only place in the living room where there was no couch, seat or desk. And it was the only place with a hallway for the assassin to hide in.
Your confusion is understandable. The eagle motif in the subsequent panels is a different motif, located above the side entrance. The actual problem (beside it not being depicted in the first panel), is that the illustrator is cheating. The bench migrates panel by panel to allow the configuration to work for the garrot attack. In the first panel, it is beside the doorway, quite reasonable. In the second, it has shifted slightly. And son on to the last panel where it is now apparently in front of the doorway.
Now, one could be generous and posit that perhaps the bench was moved by hidden track but let's not demean ourselves like that. For one, since the shift is of a significant distance and the attack is meant to be a surprise one, the bench doesn't have enough time to shift subtly. So it would be noticed, defeating the purpose.
Perhaps the door moved? But ah, the problem becomes one of peripheral vision since both parties on the bench are turned slightly and would notice a doorway moving.
It's just poor technique.
I will die happy if someone can explain the lava lamp.
-
easy, irrelevant
[Read the article: Opus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The point of this cartoon isn't to attack religion but to attack the use of personal belief (theistic, agnostic, whatever) as criteria for public office. It's an easy argument to make and completely ignores human nature especially group behavior. People deride modern politics but modern politics is what we've made it and it isn't that different from what it has always been.