Letters to the Editor
Christopher1988
Published Letters: 569 Editor's Choice: 40
-
@ Bob (continued),
[Read the article: Keith Olbermann apologizes for his Clinton remark]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Another point. It's really, really pointless to try to decided that someone supports a candidate because said person is racist, sexist, etc. We none of us know each other, we are getting to small a slice of their personality to evaluate them. So the only thing that does any real good is to look at the issues, and explain why we support one policy and not another. When Joan wants to attack Obama as "elitist" it does no good. That's a personal evaluation made for emotional reasons that you either get or don't get. It doesn't relate to his policy on Iraq or his plans for healthcare, or any of the things he might actually do once in office.
I don't have a problem with anyone supporting Hillary. But I'd rather know what she's going to do better in office than Obama, instead of hearing that people who support Obama are "mean." Because that says nothing. And when someone says they won't vote for Obama because of "mean" letter-writers, that doesn't make sense, either. It doesn't even fit the "I base a person on the company they keep" motto, because Obama doesn't know or hang out with any of us.
If Joan would be honest (which she would call "biased") then she could use her column to explain why she supports Hillary, why Hillary is the better candidate. Is it because she has a better healthcare plan? Is it because she's a seasoned politician? Is it because she's a woman? If Joan explained who she preferred and why, I might be able to understand and even adopt some of her positions. But she isn't doing that. She's playing "fair." And failing miserably.
And Salon is failing miserably.
Maybe she knows that. Maybe that's why this column, unlike previous ones, was taken off the front page so quickly, when usually it stays there for days, moving down the central column. Of course, it takes a lot to get Joan to explain reasons, and she may never explain this one. I don't know if she's trying to silence a conversation that "saddens" her, because she believes that if the article isn't conspicuously present the "trolls" won't notice it. Or if she realizes she isn't achieving her goal and just wants to put the experiment aside. We may never know.
The one thing Joan says that I love is her comment not to worry about the trolls here because if she took them into a room she'd be the only one who came out. I loved the strenght, confidence and humor of that statement. It was "slanted," not fair and imparial. But it was admirable. I support that.
I don't support repeatedly attacking one candidate and occaisionally criticizing the other candidate (but quickly dismissing what is wrong with said candidate and balancing it with something good about that candidate) and calling this unequal treatment "balance." It isn't balance.
Not sure yet if I will go back to posting earnestly or retreat into satire. Laughter cures what ails ya, but a consistent fake persona makes me feel like an essentially false person. And, again, we know from a lot of facial cues and other things that someone like Steven Colbert is engaging in insincerity and deception to make a point. But here you're going to be taken at the only thing you can be taken at: your words. And it generally just upsets people and only a very few are likely to see that what you mean is not what you are saying. And laugh and kick back a little. I don't know that I want to wear a mask all the time.
Sorry if this ramlbed. Hope these two responses clarify things!
-
Rupert C read your history
[Read the article: John McCain's "I care about poverty" tour]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Not even a million people died in the Inquisition, let alone "millions." When you throw around numbers like that, it pretty much shows you don't know what you're talking about. And it completely invalidates your argument.
-
@David
[Read the article: John McCain's "I care about poverty" tour]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I wonder if the Spanish ever used the fact that Britain banned Jews from the continent against the British?
Spain was also really harsh on homosexuals (I don't think you can use the term "gays" to describe the people of that time). One of the reasons there were so few incidents of known homosexuality was because the repercussions were so deadly.