Letters to the Editor
thatboy
Published Letters: 242 Editor's Choice: 14
-
@ Durian Joe
[Read the article: DVDs you definitely don't have]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Now, how did I know I would find you posting here?
Check out "The Mansion of Madness" (if you haven't already). The director worked with Jodorowsky on "Fando & Lis" and "El Topo," and uses some of the same actors from "El Topo." The distributor, Mondo Macabro, has a full line of films that should tickle your fancy.
If you ever get up to Philly, be sure to browse through the TLA Video store. They have an eye-popping selection of DVDs (even some rare VHS!) some of which even Netflix doesn't carry. BTW, Netflix did finally get "The Worm Eaters," but I haven't had a chance to watch it yet.
Is there anyway I can find you on Netflix to add you to my faves? If you want to find me to check out my reviews and ratings, I have the top-rated review at "Crazy Love" (2007). Same user name.
-
If Edwards endorses Clinton...
[Read the article: Edwards leaning toward endorsing Clinton? Or maybe Obama?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I won't think more highly of Clinton, I'll think less of Edwards.
If he endorses Obama, it won't sway me toward thinking Obama is a good choice for a candidate.
I think the best Edwards could do would be to encourage Dems to vote for the eventual nominee no matter who they supported in the primary. Even that wouldn't carry much weight anymore.
-
Here's to the WGA!
[Read the article: Happy ending for writers]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Many congratulations! May your success herald in a new era of strength and growth for unions so that eventually all employees are compensated with fair wages and benefits. Workers unite!
-
Blaming the strikers
[Read the article: Happy ending for writers]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why is it, whenever a union goes on strike, that the striking workers are blamed for repercussions of that strike? Instead of bitching that strikers are inconveniencing you because you're missing new shows, or public transportation is shut down, or schools are closed, how about blaming their bosses for not compensating the workers fairly? Instead of pressuring the strikers to return to work, why not pressure their bosses to meet their demands? And instead of saying, "I don't get that kind of compensation, so neither should they," saying "They should get that compensation, and so should I!"
-
A: Never
[Read the article: Divorced from religion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Q: "When should people be able to cite their religion as a reason to sidestep a country's legal system?"
-
@TRenee
[Read the article: A gay-marriage anniversary]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"What's wrong with civil unions rather than gay marriage?"
They aren't even 'Separate-But-Equal,' which would be bad enough, they are Separate AND NOT Equal.
"We don't want to get married because we don't believe a religious ceremony should be legally sanctioned by the state..."
This is a fallacy. Marriage in the U.S. is entirely a matter of law, not religion. Sure, you can have a religious ceremony if you want to, but you can have a non-religious one, too. The ceremony, without State sanction, is worthless in terms of legal recognition. Only the State grants legal marriage, only the State grants legal divorce. This is why the argument that same-sex marriage would force churches to go against their beliefs is false. It would only give the same legal recognition to same-sex partners as opposite-sex ones. Religion has NOTHING to do with legally recognized marriage.
"When my partner's employer began to offer partner insurance, we were ineligible because we weren't a gay couple. When I called his HR dept. on it, I was, insultingly, told to just get married."
Another false argument. You have a CHOICE as to whether or not to marry and participate in the benefits of marriage. Gay people, currently, do not. If gay people could get married, "partner benefits" would be a moot point. If gay people could choose to get married, those who did would receive its benefits, those who did not, would not. Gay people are not getting 'more' than you because some companies throw a few partnership perks our way, we are getting LESS.
"I actually believe it's much more progressive and revolutionary to abolish legal marriage in favor of civil unions."
Perhaps so, and I suspect that if society agreed we would do away with 'marriage' and all unions from now on would be known as 'civil unions' most gay people would be okay with that. But the idea that some people may have the Gold Standard Marriage and others may only have the lesser civil union will not stand.
-
@dataguyx
[Read the article: A gay-marriage anniversary]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"It does us, as progressives, no good at all to take a stand that is totally unpopular."
You're right. We should abandon all that is ethically, morally, and constitutionally correct in favor of political expedience.
"What is needed is the slow, careful work that led to the civil rights for blacks. That took 10-15 years."
Gay rights: 40+ years and counting.
"What Gavin Newsome did was excite the right. that brought them out to vote."
What most excited the right, brought them out to vote, and created any number of anti-gay initiatives was MA legalizing gay marriage, not Newsom's act of civil disobedience. But yes, of course, it was this small advancement in particular, and gay people in general, that caused Kerry to lose. Not a lackluster candidate or the right-wing slime machine, but gay people and their silly ideas about equal rights. Why can't we just shut up and be patient? What's another 40 years?
-
@TRenee
[Read the article: A gay-marriage anniversary]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I, also, apologize if I misconstrued your meaning. I never doubted you favor equal rights for gay people. I disagreed with what I thought some of your arguments to be. Queer National, as always, has addressed those issues far more eloquently than I could hope to.
-
@dataguyx
[Read the article: A gay-marriage anniversary]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hey, why so upset? I'm agreeing with you. Democrats should absolutely dump the whole gay rights platform so we can win, win, win!
Why, I'm completely ashamed that pushy fags like me have jeopardized not only gay rights, but the entire Democratic party. I totally understand that by being vocal and demanding, we've actually set gay rights back, whereas if we had been silent and compliant we'd be full equals by now.
I'm also greatly cheered by your timeline which gives us marriage equality in 25-30 years, instead of the longer time I'd estimated. I'd better shut up now before my big, impatient mouth pushes it up to 40 again!