Letters to the Editor
AnnieW
Published Letters: 1178 Editor's Choice: 31
-
Glenn's countertops
[Read the article: Col. Boylan's implosion accelerates]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I hope that the RW bloggers don't go so over the top that look in through Glenn's house windows and report on the type of countertops he owns (and in Malkin's case, it was STILL inaccurate!).
I love that they are screaming that Glenn is faking this. There would be no reason, it would be too easy to debunk.
p.s. bebop-o, no recipes here, I'm somewhat biased about duck soup, ever since my electrical design professor compared everything difficult and incomprehensible as "easy as duck soup". I figured it must be a bitch to make.
-
Follow up
[Read the article: Col. Boylan's implosion accelerates]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well, Manjoo is following up already on this topic here at Salon.
http://machinist.salon.com/blog/2007/11/01/boylan/
He shows that the original impersonator wasn't good, sophisticated and was an abvious scammer.
Boylan's story is getting weaker.
-
Boylan's story
[Read the article: The "real" fake Col. Steven Boylan's e-mail]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hmm, Boylan exaggerates about his attack in South Korea and now he seems to be exaggerating about being a victim of "identity theft". I'm sensing a trend.
-
Focus of the WSJ article
[Read the article: Potheads on Wall Street]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Regardless of what the focus was, the marijuana seems to be the part of the story that is getting people talking. I have already seen that portion discussed/joked about on CNBC.
-
@Garry Owen
[Read the article: Col. Boylan's implosion accelerates]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not that convinced that many of the hard core miltary bashers here are real.
I know we may have a couple, but many seem to be anonymous and I give them as much credibility as I do the ones that will post that we need to blame "1. Bush, 2. The Jews, 3. The MSM, etc" on so many articles here at Salon. They are too over the top and tiresome.
Frankly, I think they are frequently trolls and because it is a sensitive topic to you, they manage to yank your chain.
I also don't think the comment on grunt vs. Colonel was demeaning to "grunts". It's implying that grunts aren't in any way responsible for the freaking fiasco that is Iraq and don't deserve to be thrown under the bus for an email, Boylan is in a different category.
My father (USMC officer, 3 tours Vietnam, had his own issues when he came home and was dead at 48) used the term grunt frequently and the term was used both in complimentary ways and deragatory ways depending on the people in question. The term "butter bar" on the other hand, was never said nicely.
-
Military Brats
[Read the article: Col. Boylan's implosion accelerates]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I met an brilliant, retired doctor in Mexico on his sailboat (probably one of the coolest people I've ever known, one of the happiest, too) that gave me the book Military Brats by Mary Edwards Wertsch.
That book was spot on for me, I've since passed it on to others I thought it applied to.
-
MSNBC's treatment of Hillary
[Read the article: "Boys against girl," Part II]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Slightly off topic but this was mentioned above, I watched the debate and I thought it was more an anointment of Hillary as the official Dem candidate. I don't see it as an "attack" to give her a lion's share of the questions, she's smart and good on her feet and can answer them, fair or no, and trust me, the other Dem candidates that would LOVE that amount of air time.
Giving her all that time was a disservice to the other candidates, not her, especially forcing them to answer questions about their thoughts on her vs. what their policy ideas would be.
The only thing worse was their treatment of Dennis Kucinich.
-
Gore and Kerry
[Read the article: "Boys against girl," Part II]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So we're not allowed to criticise primary candidates, unless they are Obama, Edwards, Dodd, Biden, Richardson, etc. or any one else who's running against Hillary?
This is a decision for who is going to get to be the Democratic nominee, not an exercise for her to practice her debating skills for the "real" fight. I resent that she is the presumptive nominee.
As for Gore and Kerry, I supported them both strongly, but can honestly say that there might have been better candidates on the Dem side, one's that might have been able to withstand the discepencies in the voting in FL and Ohio.
In truth do you really believe that Kerry lost because Dean, Edwards or Clark said mean things about him in the primaries?
-
Perceptions of strength
[Read the article: "Boys against girl," Part II]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Of all the Democratic candidates Clinton is the one who must not appear weak on terrorism or defense. She simply won't win if she is so perceived.
I don't agree. Any Democrat that even hints at not being as psychotic in their views on the Middle East as Guiliani will be attacked in the same way. It has to be countered with the truth, not a rush to be just like the R's. and their 30% approval on the way the Iraq war is being handled...let alone their push to make the same mistakes, just bigger, with Iran.
Hillary is a hawk and pretty darned centrist in her most of her views. That doesn't prevent the RW for calling her a communist, MoveOn beholden, thick ankled lesbian. It's grossly unfair and untrue, but the primary will not change that.
They also will call Edwards alternately gay, a pretty boy and a womanizer without blinking, too. Obama/Osama the madrassa guy will be also continue to be falsely labeled and attacked.
If Richardson, Biden or Dodd move up, we can expect the same level of hostility directed their way.
Hillary Clinton may be unique in the fact that she is a woman running, but she is not unique in that she will be ruthlessly attacked by the RW regardless of what is said in the primaries.
-
@ Picko
[Read the article: "Boys against girl," Part II]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Really all I want is the best candidate to beat the Republicans, because I'm absolutely certain that no matter who the Democratic candidate is, they're going to be much much better than the Republican counterpart.
I agree 100% and will work with/for whoever finally gets the nod, but I still have my favorites.(g)