Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 361 Editor's Choice: 12
-
On the poofed hair controversy
[Read the article: Peggy Noonan is a serious "grown-up"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes, the term is certainly used in reference to hair:
http://www.wikihow.com/Style-Poofy-Hair
The OED's listing is uncharacteristically short, and includes neither the poofta nor the the poffy hair meaning, only the onomatopoeic definition, and as a term of derision or dismissal. Same with the Websters 3rd.
But I do not doubt for an instant that Noonan chose poofing to invoke the British usage, made known to me by the Monty Python bit involving the philosophy department at the australian university of Wallabaloo.
-
And, in any case
[Read the article: Peggy Noonan is a serious "grown-up"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Real men don't poof their hair.
Yes, Dirigo. Yes, Mona. Yes, she was calling the happily married, apparently monogamous Edwards a "faggot."
-
Chris Bowers on gridllock
[Read the article: Michael Bloomberg: Trans-partisan savior]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Gridlock in Washington" must only be a major problem for people who are so rich and powerful that they have to make-up problems in their lives. This is because, over the last five years, Democrats in Congress have only blocked the following pieces of legislation:
Three conservative judges (out of several dozen)
Privatization of Social Security
Retroactive immunity for telecom companies in the warrantless spying program.
Legislation to deport millions of illegal aliens
Given that these are the only conservative pieces of legislation that Democrats in Congress have blocked in the past five years, one must assume that a "government of national unity" means a government that will confirmation 100% of all conservative judges, the destruction of social security, retroactive immunity of telecom companies, and the mass deportation of twelve million people. If this third-party did not favor these things, then there would be absolutely no need to form "a government of national unity." Those four things are the sum total of what Democrats in Congress have prevented Republicans from passing, and thus are the entirety of what Democrats have contributed to "gridlock in Washington." Every other reform has been blocked by Republicans.
It would be nice, for once, if the constant drumbeat from Aging Wealthy White Men for National Unity Under Billionaire Media Moguls (AWWMNUUBM for short) decrying polarization, the lack of bi-partisanship and gridlock in Washington would actually provide specifics on what legislation their hated polarization, partisanship and gridlock is blocking. Of course, they won't actually do that, because blaming national problems on vague, undefined concepts like "polarization" and "gridlock" is much easier than actually analyzing the contemporary political scene in America.
http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2980
The Republican establishment is increasingly desperate. Joe Klein is very worried about the surging Edwards, who is not "Reasonable."
-
virtue001
[Read the article: Bloggers mature, the New York Times stumbles]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't get it. Is it so horrible to hear an opposing point of view? I personally look forward to reading editorials from the right and left side of the spectrum every morning. But for some reason the Times readers always seem fearful of opinions they don't agree with -- to the extent that they're ready to cancel their subscriptions. This behavior has even been noted by Andy Rosenthal, the Times editorial page editor. He told Politico that he fails to understand "this weird fear of opposing views," also stating, "The idea that The New York Times is giving voice to a guy who is a serious, respected conservative intellectual — and somehow that's a bad thing, how intolerant is that?"
Well, it's pretty clear that while you may look forward to reading opposing points of view, you haven't gotten around to reading what people are saying who are unhappy with Kristol's selection.
It's not that Kristol is right wing that bothers people. It's that he has been consistently wrong, and consistently disingeuous in that wrongness. Rosenthal labeled him an "intellectual," but he is not intellectual. He traffics in nonsense, at periodicals that are not self-sustaining advocating policies that have consistently proven to be Very Bad Ideas.
Moreover, the Times aleady has a neo-con on board. If they wanted to add another right wing voice , they could have chosen a theocon, a paleocon, or a realist. Instead they choose someone whose voice is already widespread and, frankly, exhausted of ideas. It's like picking Gregg Easterbrook.
Moreover, as people like Glenn Greenwald have frequently noted, the problem at the Times, and at the rest of the leading traditional media organs is that there is no balance to these radical right wing views. The left wing equivalent of David Brooks or WIlliam Kristo is Noam Chomsky, not Thomas Friedman or Paul Krugman. For some reason radical warmongerers are acceptable, but radical peaceniks are not. This is especially puzzling at a time when the world is as safe as it has ever been in America's history, no threats on even the distant horizon.
Chomsky, too, is an actual intellectual, not someone who plays an intellectual at his dad's magaizine. This is as stupid a decision as the LAT hiring Jonah Goldberg.