Letters to the Editor
shabbasgoy
Published Letters: 4 Editor's Choice: 2
-
A couple surprises
[Read the article: The 18 best Jewish ballplayers of all time]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Being raised as a die-hard Cubs fan, I was surprised to see Steve Stone and Lou Boudreau on the list. I'm one of Stone's fans for his sportscasting and miss him terribly doing color for the games.
But I guess Airplane! had it wrong when the bubbe asked for some light reading and was given a pamphlet of great Jewish sports stars.
Even though I'm a sheygetz, I kvell when I read articles like this. The Jewish mothers may prefer their sons to be doctors or lawyers or accountants, but I'm sure they would plotz with pride if their sons accomplish what these boychiks did.
-
Why not ditch her?
[Read the article: How can I ditch my bitchy friend now that she has cancer?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The LW was already extracting herself from the bitch's grip BEFORE the diagnosis, so I advise to keep up with that. Don't put yourself in a continuing unpleasant situtation JUST because the bitch now has a terminal diagnosis. Believe me, she will get even more controlling and bitchy before she kicks it. The diagnosis will not change the person she is for the better.
I know this will not sit well with those who believe in compassion for the dying, no matter how controlling the woman was before (and probably still is). I myself don't believe in it pity fucks even for the terminally ill. And that is what you, LW, are basically offering.
If you couldn't stand the woman before her illness, it will come shining through when you visit her in the hospital. There will be no true sympathy or sorrow for the woman. It will be an obvious chore done out of "duty".
But for those who think she will be "abandoning" the controlling woman, she had already done that before the diagnosis.
Pretending to still care, would be the height of hypocrisy for the LW
-
Very similar to my view
[Read the article: A Democratic donnybrook]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This was the first debate that I and my partner have watched in this political season. Afterward, we discussed it.
Since I pay way more attention to politics than he does, I gave him my analysis which was very close to yours. HRC didn't "kill" herself, but it seemed like she couldn't decide if her emphasis was to be "agent of change" or "36 years experience".
I think she came off pretty badly though when she attacked Obama for his deeds not completely matching his words. (Pot meet kettle) Of course, she knows full well that being in the Senate calls for votes on bills that don't entirely match a person's agenda and that seemed to be a bit disingenuous of her. I also realized that Clinton starts to attack, the timber and tone of her voice rises in a very unsettling manner. She needs to learn to drop her voice a 1/2 step or maybe even a full step down in tonality. It would be much easier to listen then.
One of the funniest responses Obama gave Clinton was when she quoted an AP article and attributed a quote from one of her ground troops to him. He said something along the lines of "Don't put your people's words into my mouth." He was much wittier than she was.
Surprisingly, none of the candidates called Clinton on her own votes in the Senate and the different words on the campaign trail.
But I hooted when Obama and Edwards ganged up on Clinton. She seemed quite taken aback by it and really had nothing to say.
Richardson seemed to be intelligent and came across very well, except in his emphasizing his Foreign Policy Experience. While I know it is important, I saw him as running for Secretary of State not as president.
I'm at the point where I realize the Clinton and Richardson seem oblivious to the atmosphere of this primary season. Clinton's needs to pull out Bill's old sign "It's the economy, stupid!" while adding signs such as affordable health care and the environment. The feeling among my group of friends is very similar to what we felt in '92 which I looked at a "change" election.
Overall, it really was an entertaining debate with refreshingly solid questions and very little snide nastiness (though a bit for variety). I also enjoyed the format of not having red lights stopping it. It seemed much more like a conversation between the candidates and moderators than a "debate." I didn't watch the Republican debate before (watched something I had DVR'd earlier in the week) but I did find it most intriguing to see which Republican candidates hugged which Democratic candidates as they passed.
[snark]Of course, the real question I should be asking is which candidate would I like to have beer with?[end snark] I'd have a drink with any of the four and probably would find the conversation fascinating and educational. With Clinton I think it would be a Cosmopolitan (a drink fad that is fading) or some type of vodka-shiver-martini, Richardson probably an import beer-Sapporo, Edwards an obscure microbrew lager, and Obama a Goose Island Winter Lager (since we both live in Chicago and can get it on tap).