Letters to the Editor
Little Miss Patriot
Published Letters: 52 Editor's Choice: 4
-
I used to respectfully disagree, now I wish they'd read their own platform so I can have something reasonable to respectfully disagree with
[Read the article: Another SCHIP family smeared]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I got as far as the "irresponsible decisions" part of your piece, and had to comment.
I thought the idea of addressing children's health insurance in the first place was because the children are entirely innocent, and whether they have health coverage and what kind is entirely out of their hands.
The thinking then, for conservatives, is supposed to be, "Well, you're supposed to pull yourself up by your bootstraps: if you don't, too bad for you; but if you don't and you have innocent kids at home paying for your 'irresponsible decisions', then we will step in because it's not the kids' fault."
In fact, the recent ire that has raised over "what states do" with SCHIP (what happened to states' rights? does the GOP even read their platform anymore, or is it sticky from the airport bathroom floor?) is that states were allowing the PARENTS to sign up too, which violates the policy as I just stated it: "It's OK for the kids but if you the parent need it, then you're just a lazy good-for-nothing who's not pulling hard enough on those bootstraps!"
So I suppose it's not entirely inconsistent to attack these parents, since in the "philosophy" of the policy the parents are already labeled as not responsible enough, but now doesn't seem the time to go attacking people. The GOP has already agreed to help kids if their parents can't, why are they shouting about the barn door now, after having agreed to free the horses? The whole point of SCHIP was to catch these kids and keep them from falling through the cracks, why is it such a shock right now to think that kids might need it?
This seems like the "Voter Fraud! Voter Fraud!" crying wolf that the new GOP has become so fond of.
-
I'm just about ready to give up
[Read the article: Congress to cave on spying, again]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Anyone want to start a new country with me? We can take the Constitution, these idiots aren't using it, and you can only immigrate into our country if you promise to leave your USA-style politicking at the door, discuss issues like rational adults, no name calling, no fear of reprisals, just putting your best ideas out there and seeing if anyone else agrees, and behaving honestly and with principles.
No, wait a minute! We have that country! It's just been infested with these jerks! So, when are we going to stop them?
-
Connect to the Waxman post
[Read the article: Money for nothing?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When I went to read the letter to Blackwater's Erik Prince that you linked to in the post "Isn't that how they got Al Capone, too?", Waxman had also written to Condi Rice a scathing letter. This is what the Post picked up on. I highly recommend it, it's scary because it's serious, but also amusing since this was supposed to be the "corporate style" administration.
http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1564
Click on "Letter to Secretary Rice", it will download a pdf of the letter.
Go, Henry, Go!!!
-
@Juliebird, the science of acting?
[Read the article: I feel your pain]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Clearly this is at the bedrock of why acting works in the first place: we literally feel what we see others feeling. Sophie's up on the screen trying to decide between her two children, and I'm crying-- why? I know it's not real, and yet I feel it as if it were not only really happening to the actress (which it isn't), but happening to me. Why?
It also goes to a long-held theory of mine. Many actors try to recreate (that is, really feel deeply) the emotions of the character. (This is "method".) But I believe it's not incumbent on me as an actor to feel the feelings, but rather to make YOU feel the character's feelings (whether I do that by really feeling them myself or by doing a good enough imitation). This article put science to it: it's incumbent on me to trigger your mirror neurons, and again, whether I do that by feeling the feelings deeply or pretending to, it's all the same. The difference is, we are so tuned to read body language, facial expression, etc., that an imitation has to be beyond good to trick the audience's mirror neurons into playing along (which is why many actors just go ahead and try to generate the real feeling, it's easier to achieve that than try to generate each silent clue that accompanies the feeling).
We've so long maintained that there's no science in our art, and therefore it's impossible to quantify and hard to explain. It's interesting to think there IS science behind it, and what that means for actors as we try to connect with our audiences and make them feel for us.
-
When you borrow priniciples
[Read the article: The politics of home price depreciation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]from talk-radio talking points, rather than holding your own true values that you gleaned from critical thinking, you have to change your bumper stickers and your party registration more often.
-
I finally get it
[Read the article: What was that again, Sen. Biden?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think RG is traumatized, really. He reminds me of my friend who marks everything by his divorce. "That was the year of", "that was just before", "that was just after", and everything he sees or experiences he relates to his broken relationship and/or his ex-wife.
Rudy, honey, please take your recovery somewhere else. We're trying to choose the leader of our nation over here.