Letters to the Editor
bachelard
Published Letters: 24
-
Children
[Read the article: How secure are you? ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Actually, Camille, there is not a single police report on record anywhere in America of a child coming upon a primal gay scene in a rest room. I researched this about 7 years ago for a paper on public sex. Maybe there's been once since then, but I doubt it.
People love to evoke the innocent child as a reason for regulating behavior of all sorts -- as if a child was going to be traumatized by a fleeting glimpse of oral sex in a world of Internet porn and graphic TV.
-
More of the same
[Read the article: Dogma days ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Do you think maybe, possibly, could it be that Ms. Paglia has been excluded from the New York Review of Books? In actuality, the NYRB includes some of the best political reporting and analysis in the country.
As usual CP's verbiage is embarassingly self-referential and her role as glib provocateur is analogous to Borsch Belt comedy: so stuck in the past, it's archaic. I can see her yanking her string tie and complaining that she don't get no respect like she did in the good ole days.
Camille, it really looks bad for someone who claims to be a critic of pop culture to be so happily stuck in the recent past.
And, my god, the Hillary bashing and the resurrection of Gennifer Flowers! Yes, you've got a million of 'em, you really do. Mega-dittos, girlfriend. You and Rush ARE big. It's the brains of the rest of us that got small.
-
Greenwald explains Paglia
[Read the article: Dogma days ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think this from Glenn Greenwald's column explains Paglia quite well:
UPDATE II: In comments, El Cid makes a vital point about the behavior of Congressional Democrats:
"The Democratic leadership's Beltway peers, the pundits they appreciate, and the consultancy class see it as a victory whenever the Democrats defy their own base to support some hawkish initiative.
"It's these opinions they care about, and those people only make fun of the Democratic leadership when they give in to their dirty fringe crazy unsophisticated 'base'.
"Defying their own base / majority of US public to favor hawks: Strong, Bold, Unconventional.
"Acting for their own base / majority of US public to defy hawks: Timid, Yielding, Controlled By 'Interest Groups'.
In Beltway World, Democrats are "strong" and "principled" only when they repudiate that most hated species -- the base of their own party (now even dirtier due to the fact that it coincides with popular opinion generally). Scorning their own base is how Democrats get their head-pat from the Beltway Establishment, which is, far and away, what they crave most.
-
Edwards, Kristol
[Read the article: The role of political reporters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is unbelievable how the press ignores Edwards. It's not even subtle. I wish someone would write a book about how we got from Watergate-style investigative reporting to this kind of Barbie-and-Ken journamalism.
And how in hell does the NY Times, after what it went through with Judith Miller, have the temerity to make an even worse hire in the lying Bill Kristol? And why don't Gail Collins and MoDo just fuse back into the single amoeba they were?
-
KOS
[Read the article: Chris Matthews is right ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well, it's good to see Markos echoing the media's claim that it was only weepy folks who pity Hillary that turned out to give her a lead.
This kind of crap isn't by any means limited to the MSM.
-
She's not woman enough
[Read the article: Why I'm still not for Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm an Edwards supporter, but I'm more inclined to pick Hillary over Obama (although I really do appreciate the review of her record by commenters here).
Kissling's essay reads like so many other rationalizations for hating Hillary. She addresses the issues and then inevitably resorts to the argument that we need a better woman to be the first woman president.
Sorry, Ms. Kissling, but I hope no election becomes about picking the woman most exemplary of the most wonderfully womanlike qualities of women (in your view) -- instead of a woman trying too much to be masculine (in your view).
The mind reels. Only in academia do you encounter people vain enough to spend time calibrating the markers of gender for the rest of us while they declaim the relative meaninglessness of it all. Hillary's too stereotypically male? WTF is the rhetorical difference in that and calling John Edwards a fag?
No doubt you really don't get how guilty of your own accusation you are, but that seems to be Hillary's role in the culture: to take on every projection about gender -- no matter how backward or educated, covert or overt, male or female -- it is.
-
Your HP
[Read the article: The McCain/Hagee story picks up steam]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm sure you've been advised before, but make your next purchase a Mac. And even if you do get a Mac, you gotta back your files up.
My HP laptop, the last Windows-operated computer I bought, completely died after two years and they could not recover anything on the hard drive. And before the hardware problems, I had continual virus and spyware problems, no matter how many protective barriers I erected.
Good luck!
-
Creepy but not Bush-creepy
[Read the article: Why do conservatives really find the Obama campaign "scary"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Creepy" is exactly the word I used after seeing the second will.i.am vid. Visions of Mussolini's followers popped into my head. It really is like mass hypnosis. The video says absolutely nothing educational and is purely about personality.
No, it doesn't compare to the outright lies of the Bush propaganda but it does have the same aura of the sheeple praising the name of the good shepherd.
It won't keep me from voting for Obama, but it is disappointing.