Letters to the Editor
Amity
Published Letters: 725 Editor's Choice: 91
-
Salon has gone too far
[Read the article: Why Bradsheet?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am a long-standing Salon subscriber, and have appreciated your steady, sober-minded direction since the beginning. As a dedicated conservative, I have found Salon's voice to be a refreshing change from the usual liberal nonsense in the mainstream media. From your outspoken stance against the bankruptcy of "pop" culture in "I Like to Watch", to the vigorous, intelligent defense of our wartime President by Joe Conason and others, to Garrison Keillor's charming musings on the value of conservative ideals in American life -- and of course so much more -- Salon has been a refuge from the gathering storm.
But recently I have begun to sense a subtle shift in Salon's editorial direction. I have begun to feel that Salon may be increasingly willing to compromise its commitment to deceny merely in order to appeal to a broader audience. Little digs at President Bush have begun to appear. Entertainment commentary that is, let us say, not entirely rigorous in its condemnation of degeneracy. I have kept silent, understanding that Salon must experiment with its format from time to time, and believing that sooner or later these heady flirtations with fashion will run their course.
Enter "Bradsheet". How can I express the depth of my shock? A Hollywood entertainer -- a wild-eyed radical, to boot -- receiving his own section in Salon? One clearly intended to mock the sober-minded defense of traditional family values found in "Broadsheet", at that? Not to mention the subtle perversity of the image of the "actor". Is this some kind of "ironic detachment"? Or has Salon somehow unknowingly hired a liberal into its ranks?
Salon, please end this frippery -- tomorrow is not too soon. I will not be able to renew my subscription to a publication that contains "Bradsheet".
-
A modest analogy
[Read the article: With a movie star's help, the Democrats discover a wedge issue]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree with Elephantman, and as it happens I personally identify strongly with the position the poor, beleaguered GOP is in.
For some time now I've taken the morally and ethically moderate stance of NOT taking out a gun and firing it at family services cops when they come to my house and ask me about those child support payments for the kids I fathered out of wedlock. It's not that I oppose the morally debateable system of child welfare -- it's just that I don't think any of my money should go toward supporting it.
My local municipality, however, has taken the EXTREME position of DEMANDING my money as some kind of legal, ethical, and civic "obligation to society".
There are even some crackpot liberals who claim that there's a connection between government spending and imminent improvements in the health and well-being of chilren, and the fabric of our nation as a whole. I wish they would all go debate the issue with someone serious and responsible, like journalist Rush Limbaugh.
Way to go, Elephantman!
-
"Ethical" my eye
[Read the article: My ex's grandmother left me some money -- should I share it with him?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The whole reason for last wills and testaments is to avoid wrangling over inheritance after someone has died. Don't as the surviving family for advice -- it's the grandmother's decision, not theirs. (An honorable family member would refuse to advise you anyway, since they're an interested party.)
A nice old lady who knew you in passing liked you enough to leave you money in her will. This happens in life. Provided she did so freely, no custom or moral law binds you aside from accepting graciously.
In fact the one thing that is immoral is dickering and arguing over who "ought" to get the money in the shadow of her passing. After I'm gone, if my grandchildren spend a single breath second-guessing my intentions in writing my will, I swear I will return from beyond the grave and torment them.
As for those who assert that giving away money is the only ethical choice, why not give the letter writer ten grand yourselves? What's that? You laugh at the very idea? You ask what she's done to earn it? You ask why you should be involved in a mess that someone else has brought on themselves? You say you have other things to consider, other obligations, plans and a life of your own?
Well, not to put too fine a point on it, screw you and your "ethics," then.
-
Encore!
[Read the article: Katie Roiphe's morning after]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dear Editor,
Today's article by Rebecca Traister is a model of the penetrating, critical, thorough but unapologetically opinionated mode of journalism that is Salon at its best. Personal but not indulgently so, Traister never forgets that this is foremost an article about Roiphe, not Traister, while slyly letting her interview subject make her own bed and then strangle herself in the sheets. And all the while, there's a nicely succinct book review going on at the same time.
(One can't help but wonder whether Traister's lingering hostility toward Roiphe as an intellectual helped sharpen Traister's focus, and impel her to go that wicked extra distance in her follow-up research. If so, Editor, Salon would benefit from more such antagonism, and let impulses toward good feeling and accommodation be damned.)
Perhaps having Katie Roiphe on the faculty is a good choice for NYU. That's for others to say. But having Rebecca Traister on the staff is definitely good for Salon. Encore!