Letters to the Editor
Christopher1988
Published Letters: 569 Editor's Choice: 40
-
@chiefpayne
[Read the article: How 1968 changed Hillary]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Absolutely. One of the things Obama has shown in this campaign is what a good negotiator he is. He can get people on board with his ideas, and he can steer them away from smear campaigns so that issues don't get lost in personality politics. This is a good indication that, whether Congress proves to be majority Democrat or Republican, or so close to one or the other than swing votes become crucial, he has a shot at getting his policies implemented.
Hillary has always been a polarlizing figure. She says so herself, in her more candid moments. She doesn't have Bill's charm, she isn't good at making people feel comfortable with her, and she doesn't have the Slick Willy tactics to evade tricky issues. She antagonizes people and alienates them. Bill, let's face it, knows how to seduce a crowd, indeed a population (though he's worked hard to destroy this talent during his wife's campaign). She'll never get Republicans to go along with any of her plans. Even with all her efforts to synch herself up with the Bush White House over the war, and a generally middle-of-the-road Senatorial record, the conservatives still won't budge an inch in their estimation of her. She won't be able to accomplish anything.
Should she win the Presidency, and I just don't see it happening, it will be a frustrating and unproductive four years. And then the Republicans will be set up to take over everything again (bet a Clinton win would lead to a Republican victory over Congress).
-
So why does the era continue to fascinate us?
[Read the article: Through a bong, darkly]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It doesn't.
-
So much good here, why ruin it with something so bad?
[Read the article: Hillary's slick willies]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Like you, I think that the "born gay" thesis is a crock. P.c. ideology is usually simplistically social constructionist, but when it comes to gayness, biology currently rules the roost. Of course it makes no sense. As I have written in the past, homosexuality is an adaptation, the product of a multitude of social and psychological factors. I believe we are all born with a capacity for bisexual expression, which may or may not evince itself, depending on circumstance.
Why does the idea of being "born gay" make no sense? Considering homosexual preference is found throughout the animal kingdom—and I am talking about animals who only gravitate sexually towards their own gender—it suggests that nature is both more varied than the strict "male-female" equation would have it, but that the variations are innate in the individual.
How is homosexuality an "adaptation"? At what point does that adapatation occur? While I do think there is a spectrum of sexuality, there are lots of men and women who have never found their own sex attractive. And there are certainly men and women who have never found the opposite sex so. What do you say to people who from childhood only had a proclivity towards their own sex? When did they start "adapting"?
I know you aren't writing a paper, just responding to a letter, but I wish you'd put more effort into your argument.
-
Feminism and Porn Don't Seem to Go Together?
[Read the article: Who put this feminism in my porno?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Guess you'v enever heard of Susie Bright...
-
Shapiro grudgingly gives Obama a good story.
[Read the article: Spare votes?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But boy does he try to skew it in Hillary's favor as much as possible.
Even with all the passions raised by the primary, there were few overt attacks on Clinton. Although in his opening remarks Martin did claim, "The difference between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama is that Sen. Clinton said she will take contributions from corporations and Sen. Obama, if you've seen his ads, will not." His comments echoed Obama's side of the ad wars between the two campaigns. But during the evening, no one pointed out that Martin had badly mangled Clinton's position, since direct corporate contributions to a candidate have long been illegal.
While he doesn't bother to mention that
"I have a real problem with Obama saying on the news that his country is so important to him, but he can't put his hand on his heart for the Pledge of Allegiance."
badly mangles the event, and it's implications about Obama's patriotism, as well.
And snipes about Obama's shoe size, comments on Wright, etc.
Still, the article is good news. When Shapiro, against everything he's seemingly wanted in the past, has to acknowledge Obama may have the edge, it shows that even the most confirmed Salon ostrich, er, editorialist, must occasionally look up and accurately survey the political landscape.
-
LOL
[Read the article: TiVo can predict "American Idol" losers. (Goodbye Syesha!)]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Please let's go back to reading books.
Usually by this time in the season, I've gotten sucked into American Idol, I've picked my favorites and I've vowed to buy their CDs whether they win or not.
I've never bought a CD released by an American Idol winner, or runner up, yet. Once the excitement of the contest is over, I lose all interest.
And this year I haven't gotten into it at all.
-
@The Notorious W.E.S
[Read the article: Spare votes?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Gee, it seems that the Obama folks would want to actually win one big state other than Illinois before it's over.
Yeah, and most of the small ones, which are the ones that really count in the general election.