Letters to the Editor
nadador
Published Letters: 44 Editor's Choice: 5
-
I have to agree... he's turned toward the dark side
[Read the article: McCain's Falwell flip-flop]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree completely with Farhad... I watched "Meet the Press" this weekend and my heart sunk as I heard Senator McCain backtrack on some admirable stances he'd taken in the past. I respected McCain so much for being honorable, honest, and not willing to just tow the party line in every instance. I worry that may be changing... although I'll keep a close eye on him to see what his next steps are.
-
I think it's all in the name...
[Read the article: The next-gen disc format war gets uglier, more ridiculous]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I predict HD-DVD will win the consumer vote simply because of marketing... and not through promotions or publicity, but the simple factor of its name. This may sound overly simplistic, but think about it: we have two formats of High-Definition DVDs. One is called "HD-DVD." One is called "Blu-Ray." One sounds simple, no-nonsense, generic (in a good way), even non-proprietary. The other one sounds flashy and trendy, which is great except if you're worried about it being long-lasting. If a consumer thinks both are equivalent (at least in that they both deliver HD video) and is worried that one of the two formats is going to win out over the other, I think consumers would be more likely to bet on the one with the long-lasting name. And that one is HD-DVD.
-
Bisexuality and Power
[Read the article: The GOP's crowded closet]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Although I myself identify purely as gay, I believe there's a good number of men in the world who have at least a small bit of a bisexual orientation. That is, they are definitely attracted to women but also can have some attraction to men. I believe that many of these men, as I probably would have, identify themselves as 'straight' and 'not gay!' so therefore any if they have a desire to get frisky with a guy, or if they actually do it, then it's just a little naughty act, an indiscretion that shouldn't be brought to light. And even if it IS brought to light, they can insist that they aren't gay and they may be correct.
What's wrong with this is that it defines 'homosexuality' as a behavior and not an orientation, and the conservatives (especially the bisexuals) can be genuine in their preaching against homosexuality and say they believe it's bad behavior that shouldn't be sanctioned by the government. This mindset refuses to recognize that there are gay, taxpaying citizens. There's only bad gay behavior.
HOWEVER... I think there's also something else going on here, and that is the politics of POWER. Many politicians (and republicans in particular) have demonstrated in recent years that they are interested in loyalty, power, and election victories more than they are interested in any principles. For a closeted gay republican who is NOT tormented by his own sexuality, then the closet is just a way to stay in this political game and enjoy the tangible rewards of political victory. In this case, many politicians take positions unfriendly to gays purely for political reasons... to ensure their reelection, to drive conservative voters to the polls, etc. Even if these politicians aren't virulently anti-gay, they capitalize on certain voters' homophobia to get other results that are desirable to them.
So in a nutshell, Senator Craig may very well not be gay (even if he WAS playing games in the restroom), but an overwhelming amount of sexual misunderstanding and political gamesmanship really clouds the discussion and further sensationalizes what is not really a very complicated situation.
-
Whatever his motives, I think he's right!
[Read the article: George Will's preemptive strike]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't get it why Hillary is leading in polls by so much! I think Will's two points are both spot-on, and I lean democratic! Hillary has been in the national spotlight for 15 years. People's opinions of her are not going to change. Nearly half the American public says they'll never vote for her. Right or wrong, there are plenty of people in the country who hate her and will be determined to vote against her. There are other democratic candidates who deserve more consideration besides the so-called "front-runner". And frankly, I think the same goes in the current GOP field. I can't imagine a worse choice between Hillary and Guiliani. What an ugly campaign that will be! And what a choice we'll have to make. Bad on one end, or bad on the other.
America needs BIG CHANGE with a capital C. Not just in the white house, not just in our executive branch policies, but with the whole political atmosphere. If Hillary is our next president, we will not see big change. I can live with her, but I think we can do much, much better.
Please, folks, don't just vote for who you *think* is going to win. Examine the candidates carefully and thoughtfully and do what you think will be best for the country!
-
Electability and racism
[Read the article: Why conservatives love Barack Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Regarding the comments about "America won't elect a black man"... I've even heard this from a friend or two, and the first time it really struck me because it hadn't even crossed my mind. But on further thinking, it tells me one of two things:
1) This person won't vote for the person they think is best, rather for the person they think will win. I think this is not the way someone should be voting, but it's understandable given the way our news media keeps reporting the polls like this is a horse race. Sure, if a horse is ahead, you'd bet on him. But electing a president takes a little more consideration.
or
2) This person is, in a subtle way, projecting his/her own racism. I don't doubt that there may be plenty of racists who wouldn't vote for Obama, but I KNOW there are a BIG BUNCH of Republicans who would never vote for Hillary just because she's Hillary.