Letters to the Editor
ABel3K
Published Letters: 22 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Context is everything
[Read the article: Quote of the day: Obama on Clinton ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How about we all take a look at a clip of the quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qNpeGPdhEw
Seems less a calculated sexist remark than a rambling answer. Either way, not a shining moment.
-
The sky is falling!
[Read the article: National Journal's ideological ranking of Obama rears its ugly head]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This sort of alarmist reaction by Mr. Koppelman is precisely why these attacks have worked by the right against Democrats so well in the past. The nervous dodginess that Kerry and others have used in the past rarely sits well with the public--regardless of what substance the attacks themselves might entail.
It's amusing that elsewhere on this site today, Glenn Greenwald detailed precisely what skill and adept Senator Obama has shown in deflecting right wing attacks through both his trademarked "rise above the fray" standard as well as flat out attacking the premise of the attack itself. I see no reason to believe that things should change once the Noise Machine latches onto this mem in particular.
-
An excellent decision
[Read the article: Anonymous no more]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This should do much to limit the ad hominem and cheap shots being made by those who had previously chosen to post anonymously. The biggest problem with allowing anonymous commentary in the past was that even though some people (rightly) point out that screen names are a form of anonymity as well, they also serve as a crucial form of identification. It's one thing to see ten abusive comments posted by "Anonymous"--which could be ten different people. It's another to realize that those posts all come from the same screen name.
-
If only he'd been as good a professor...
[Read the article: Die, Daddy, die!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...As he is a writer, I can't help but think that perhaps David would've had an easier time finding that evanescent sense of contentment that comes from throwing yourself entirely into your own interests. Those of us who studied under him hoped to learn at the foot of a great writer. Instead, we found cause for celebration whenever we received a mere four sentences of ambiguous commentary on our work.
Ghoulish and obsessive attempts at measuring up to others, instead of reveling in our daily lives, is the eternal pitfall; it's the reason that when Death finally knocks on our door, so many of us say "What? How can you be here already?"
-
And . . .?
[Read the article: Quote of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Typically these "Quote of the Day" posts are designed to highlight the speaker/author's asininity. I'm assuming that was the intended effect of this one as well, particularly given the strong emphasis of Waldman's liberal ties.
If that's the case, I see no discontinuity at all. What I see is someone frustrated with the amount of organization and energy that an organization is expending on activities that have zero value on affecting politics at the transformative or transactional level. What I see in it is Waldman's frustrations that these energies aren't being spent in more tactically beneficial ways, but instead seem to focus merely on self-affirmation of one's moral rightness.
That said, I'll have to consider BARTing it up to Berkeley for the bicycling. :)
-
Criminalizing Ideological Motives
[Read the article: Is Briana Waters a terrorist?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Aside from reiterating the first poster's comment that it's the legal system, not the law that needs reform, I'd like to address the discomfort that some other posters have with the law itself by way of a tangent.
Individuals who (rightly) point out the sentencing discrepancies between someone who engages in arson for terroristic reasons vs. ones like insurance fraud are discovering what's been a source of frustration for many individuals on the right: sentencing not the act itself, but the motive underlying it. Conservatives take issue with this act when it pops up in the form of hate crime legislation; they argue that it has a chilling effect on free speech and that murder, assault, or any other crime is equally reprehensible simply because it happened, regardless of whether the reason for it is racism or gay-bashing--an argument that I suspect not many people who are reading this have a sympathetic ear for.
So if you're concerned that burning a building is punished differently when it's done by ELF to protest environmental policies, ask yourself if you'd be equally uncomfortable were a hate crime sentencing enhancer applied to someone who vandalizes or commits arson on a Temple or predominantly minority church.
-
Yeah . . .
[Read the article: Why Hillary Clinton should be winning]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And if I were the super-duper delegate whose vote was the only one that mattered, Obama would've won long ago.
Come on.
-
Why a new terminology?
[Read the article: Is Barack Obama a libertarian paternalist?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is really a fundamentally old (and traditionally conservative) approach--creating incentives rather than directly regulating. The only tangible benefits to this would be in the marketing benefits of drawing in more people to their philosophy.
I just really fail to see how this is new or groundbreaking in any way.