Letters to the Editor
Christopher1988
Published Letters: 569 Editor's Choice: 40
-
This crap again?
[Read the article: America closes the book on intelligence]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The baby boomers were told how stupid and inarticulate they were (like, man, they didn't even read) and then turned around and dumped on us Gen Xers about how dumb we were. And I hoped, hoped, we would not turn around and hypocritically diss the following generation. Sadly that seems to be happening.
I'm grateful that the first comment here was by Rowena, and am likewise happy to read the comments by J. Nathan, Alec Elixir, Jeff Smith, and 565656565656.
Does a quiet dorm really signify intellectual malaise? Is knowing about the fireside chats really relevant? (If the student didn't recognize who FDR was, or that there had been a Great Depression, or know who won WW II, that would be a different scenario.) I guess soon we're going to start hearing about how they don't have any moral values, have thrown out all the things we worked so hard to achieve, blah, blah, blah.
Must each generation become the crotchety critic of the younger set? I don't think Gen Y is stupider or less interested in intellectual discourse than the previous generation. There's always a spectrum of both intelligence and ability to communicate.
I think Jacoby is demonstrating her own lack of intelligence, and analytical skill, by resorting to such cliqued criticism, and indulging in such blatant self-righteousness. By the way, if the new generation is so dumb, what does that say about the older generation that was responsible for educating them?
-
Anything to Smear Obama, I guess
[Read the article: The dude vote]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]An earlier article run here suggested he was the "woman" while Hillary was "the man." Now that he's beating her, it's "this was the 'guy vote' all along." There have been snarky articles all along regarding Obama, and most of the Hillary pieces gush with praise. Salon will do anything, it seems, to support the female candidate...because she's a female...which is the sort of logic this (choking on laughter as I type this) "think piece" is supposed to be against. Right?
-
Would you PLEASE get over Hillary?
[Read the article: Should Hillary Clinton drop out?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]For the second time in a week, Barack Obama won the Democratic debate by not losing.
What does a sentence like that even mean? Yes, of course Hillary should drop out. It's over for her, over, and for once she should show some tact. But hey, if she wants to stay in there and keep losing states and keep complaining about that mean ole media—used to be a "vast right wing conspiracy" but you can't use that dodge when your own party members are routinely voting against you; it would be wonderful if Hillary decided to join O'Reilly at this point in denouncing the "liberal" media—and keep getting more frazzled, which always makes her more uptight and strident. Nothing could be better, as far as I'm concerned. Certainly few things in the course of the primary elections will be as entertaining.
But the way that the editors' choices for featured letters in all the political columns skew heavily towards pro-Hillary posts, even when the majority of responses are pro-Obama, and the way this site only grudgingly acknowledges his success at all, is pretty ridiculous at this point.
Can't Salon (and I think that essentially means Joan Walsh) get over Hillary? Just let it go and acknowledge the situation? Perhaps even throw a little support towards the man who is likely to save this country from Republican rule? Isn't it about time for that, whether it's time for Hillary to leave the race or not?
-
Inherantly sexist
[Read the article: Hillary at twilight]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This article and all the others that go on and on analyzying Hillary's downfall with an emphasis on empathy. As anther commetator mentioned, were the roles reversed, no one would be eulogizing Obama and questioning whether he should continue in the race. It would be a blunt "it's over, get out." Funny that Salon should practice this double standard.
-
A good article, but who wrote the by-line?
[Read the article: Obama's got ground game]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Srewd" comes loaded with lots of negative connotations. I wonder if Madden himself is responsible for it, or is that more of Salon's push for skewed coverage?
-
"We all retain some capacity for childlike magical thinking."
[Read the article: The audacity of narcissism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That would be funny if it weren't for Salon's continued tub-thumping for Hillary.
-
Never, but never
[Read the article: Women ARE funny. And foxy!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]did I imagine I would read "Amy Sedaris" described as "hot." Tina Fey is mousey looking, I guess not unattractive in a "brainy, well-dressed" manner, but hardly a looker. The whole idea is kinda ridiculous. Who counts as a "hot" male comic, in your opinion? Andy Dick? Michael Richards?
In general, stand up comics aren't that great looking, as a bunch. I mean, Jerry Seinfeld and Sarah Silverman come closest, and both are kinda dorky looking, if a bit more photogenically so. And, not coincidentally, they both star in sitcoms. Sitcom actors tend to be fairly good looking. Though generally, they are not all that funny. Networks want pretty people on their comedies and dramas. But professional comedians and comediennes? No way.
Ellen Degeneres? Paula Poundstone? Rosey O'Donnell? Kathy Griffin? I think all these can be counted as successful comediennes (I guess Poundstone lost her place due to a ridiculous scandalp too bad, she's my favorite of the bunch). Is any one of them a looker? But then neither is Chris Rock.