Letters to the Editor
bmaggie
Published Letters: 52 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Slow Down....
[Read the article: Men, turn off your Cuisinarts!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Heresy! Blasphemy!
Garrison has capitulated to the corporate war monger processed food oil company weapons manufactures right wing cabal!
Be warned Mr. Keillor, I happen to know for a fact that Alice Waters and Carlo Petrini have both put out a �contract� on you!
SLOW FOOD POWER!!!!
Kind Regards,
Mark
-
partner yoga should ALWAYS be optional
[Read the article: Why I hate partner yoga]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've been taking yoga classes for thirty years and refuse to do partner yoga. I never liked it and after someone much larger than me wrenched my back in a partner yoga exercise I generally just drop out of classes where partner yoga is included.
You should never let an untrained person put their hands on your body. Besides all the opportunities for passing along viruses (and now here in SF god awful staph infections) it's just plain dangerous. Plus it destroys your concentration. I think this is often laziness on the part of the teachers and really, really annoying.
Take a social dancing class if you want to work with a partner. Yoga is a form of meditation. Most of what passes for yoga these days, especially the whole flow-power-ashtanga -vinyasa style is a great workout (until it gets really boring) but only marginally related to the deep and mindful practice of yoga. (and I agree with the writer who stated that it sounds odd to hear of partner work in an ashtanga style yoga class). The teachers of these classes learn a routine and repeat it over and over. They could be teaching aerobics.
At the Berkeley Y where I used to take a great variety of yoga classes we were always told by the teachers that partner work was optional. To do otherwise is to expose yourself to liability as a teacher and an institution.
Just say NO.
-
@suenj97, akasmith and friends
[Read the article: The dude vote]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Impressive. I was compelled to go read all your letters. Great to see some intelligent discourse down here in the gutter. How do you do it? If I spend too much time here I just feel like I have to go take a long hot shower to wash off the slime. Hang in there.
Thanks Edward McClelland for saying what needs to be said. The dude backlash was inevitable. Hopefully it's digging it's own grave.
marvin
-
A chance to learn a thing or two
[Read the article: Hillary at twilight]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The great thing about this primary race is how much I've learned about the whole process. I've been a solid Democratic voter for 25 years, but seldom had a chance to vote in a primary and always found it annoying that two or three states got to make the choice. I think especially with an unknown quantity like Obama, the longer he campaigns the better it is for him.
The history of the primaries and all the changes the parties have gone through in the past hundred years or so is fascinating and the articles I read about it wouldn't be out there if this race wasn't going on. And on. And on. The journalists and the voters who believe their candidate is winning want it to be over. But this is an historic campaign not just because of the candidates but also the way it has exposed and possibly altered the process. In fact, the founding fathers never expected the President to be chosen by popular vote. The Senate and the Congress were to reflect "the voice of the people" and the Presidential nominee was to be chosen by the party. We still have many vestiges of this system in place. When it comes to real change and unity it's probably still more important for us to focus on the Senate and the Congress.
As far as I can tell it remains to be seen whether either candidate can get the delegates they need to tie up the nomination. This is a much more complex process than people realize. The 11 "wins" that Obama has just made aren't exactly that simple and straight forward. I wish the media would at least spell that out, but not many seem to want to delve into non partisan analysis.
Here's just one recent interesting article: http://www.theweekdaily.com/news_opinion/briefing/35652/briefing_convention_chaos.html
-
Still learning
[Read the article: Hillary at twilight]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Correction: Guess that would be the Senate and the House of Representatives.
-
the caucus conundrum
[Read the article: Networks call Texas primary for Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Texas primary vs. the Texas caucus results underscores that Obama owes a substantial portion of his delegate lead to winning states that hold caucuses. Unfortunately, the National Election is not a caucus and his inability to win primaries in big states is a problem. I like Obama but I think it's a good thing for all of us, including him, for this race to continue. It's not clear whether his message has "legs" and better to find out in the primary race than later in the national election. It would not just be disaster for the Democrats, it would be political suicide for Senator Obama.
The Clinton campaign is not running a smear campaign as many people seem to want to believe. If you watch the ads, they are pretty standard political campaign fare. She's simply making her case for her candidacy in a somewhat dramatized (it's advertising, after all) but fairly straight forward way.