Letters to the Editor
R.Mutt
Published Letters: 3
-
Re: Can't hum it, can't dance to it.
[Read the article: Is rap racist?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Maybe you don't beleive it's dancing, but much like your predecessors, who thought black people weren't real people so it was okay to enslave and rape them, you're opinion of what's music and what's art is pretty much based on your own prejuidice. So, there. You old fart."
stackey-ackey, your own prejudice is rather more apparent than David Sugarman's.
-
It is tragic that Liberalism has been reduced to this; defending a fucking arsonist.
[Read the article: Is Briana Waters a terrorist?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ramasees,
The fact that you think a poorly written Salon article that raises doubts about the verdict of the Waters case and questions the motive of expanding the scope of terrorism laws to include these kind of acts is somehow the ultimate distillation of current American Liberalism only goes to shows you for the clueless reactionary you are.
Over 50% of the comments here disapprove of the actions of ELF or any environmental activist who engages in arson and other criminal acts against people or property. What are the chances that each and everyone of these posters are self identified conservatives ?
By your logic, I could claim that its tragic that Conservatism has been reduced to defending fucking murderers of women and children on the basis of an article in National Review raising questions about the political motivation and circumstances in the prosecution of the soldiers charged with the killings in Haditha.
Unlike you, apparently, most people's political affiliations are more a matter of degree than dogmatic allegiance to the party line.
-
The archetypical letter calling Paul H-O a leech...
[Read the article: I dated Cindy Sherman ...]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Before even opening the comments section I knew a letter just like softdog's would be there waiting for me. Though I haven't seen the film, the article makes it pretty clear that Ms. Sherman gave her consent and participated in the making of the it. Her recent ambivalence toward it is nothing more than PR., calculated to juice up public interest. Sherman's been around for a long time, To be sure, a little fresh "exposure", of a different sort, wouldn't exactly be seen as unwelcome by her dealers, regardless of what they might be saying in the press.
Softdog's predictably condescending and sneering disparagement is misplaced. Paul's not a leech. According to the article, Sherman isn't depicted as a monster, its the world that she and her dealers have created around her, "Cindyworld", that is held up to scrutiny.
I also beg to differ with what was perhaps the most stomach- turning cliche of SD's letter: that Paul would not exist were it not for Sherman. Paul was existing well enough to attract Sherman's attention in the first place. He probably didn't fully understand what he was getting into, falling in love with, not just an another individual, but a jealously guarded and controlled commodity.