Letters to the Editor
EricDinLA
Published Letters: 11 Editor's Choice: 2
-
Yea but Barry Bonds is a Jerk
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hank Aaron, Barry Sanders, and Walter Payton...everybody loved these guys. OK, so they didn't do steroids. That's beside the point. If Barry Bonds weren't such a jerk, people would be much more forgiving toward him. It's tough defending a guy whose actions make him indefensible.
-
The Jive of 1985
[Read the article: Where were you freshman year?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]1) We are the World
2) PMRC (led by Tipper Gore) Senate hearings on the effects of of Rock Music on Teens. (Now we blame Rap).
3). New Coke
4). Windows 1.0 (yes I was a computer geek)
5). The Debut of "Moonlighting" starring Bruce Willis and Cybil Shepard
-
Tony's Revelation in the Desert
[Read the article: "The Sopranos" prediction pool]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When Tony was tripping on peyote with the hottie in the desert, I think his revelation was, "kill them before they kill you". So when he got word from the FBI man about Phil's plan, Tony put his own into action. That is, Tony will kill everyone close to him and use Phil as the scapegoat.
How can he do this? Well for one I'll bet he has already killed Phil. Last weeks episode covered about four or five days in Soprano time, and no one has seen Phil for that amount of time. Plus the hit attempt we saw on Phil that went wrong was so stupid, it had to be diversion tactic by Tony. Phil would have never answered the door at night by a DHL delivery man with an Italian accent. A plan like that just wouldn't work.
Why do I think all of this? Tony's Mother and Uncle tried to kill him early in the series. To me, that opened the door for Tony to kill anyone close to him. I mean if your mother and uncle conspire to kill you, that will turn you into an even colder blooded killer than you were before.
Overall, I think Tony dying or living are both too easy an answer. The final outcome will be somewhere in between the two. That is; The hero lives but the audience's love for him dies. So Tony will live, but in the end he'll do something so awful (killing his capos & maybe his own son), we won't love him anymore. That would be an epic finish to a great series.
-
Dear Salon, you can't have it both ways
[Read the article: Impressions of Paris' last night in jail]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When you publish an article about the ridiculous amount of media attention Paris receives, you've become part of the problem. You don't get to have it both ways.
-
The sad truth is...
[Read the article: Iraq and roll over]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This mess will not be over anytime soon no matter what course of action congress takes. Because of the mess Bush created in Iraq, the US military will be back in Iraq within 10 years. So do we stay now, or wait and return... Does it really matter?
-
Sooo, what are the authors saying???
[Read the article: Stop your sobbing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]OK, I think I get the point that other tactics need to be employed by environmentalists in order to better serve their cause and the planet. But were there any suggestions here? I'm trying real hard to give the benefit of the doubt to the authors, but they didn't offer much to work with.
How about this? It is pretty arrogent to believe that we can actually kill the planet. The earth has been hit by asteroids, shaken by volcanoes, frozen solid by ice and snow, and life of one sort or another has continued to evolve. WIth that said, it's more accurate to say, we're not really killing the planet, we're killing ourselves. The earth was here long before us, and will continue on long after we make this place uninhabitable for humans.
So maybe, the environmental movement should frame its messages from that perspective. You know, actually put a fragile human face on the cause that people can more easily relate to. "Human beings don't live forever, and the human race will certainly usher in its own demise, unless we change the way we interact with our precious home", something like that....but make no mistake about it, if the earth is just a barren rock, it will still be here after we're gone.
-
Don't dismiss Oprah
[Read the article: Clinton's answer to Oprah?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I feel like Oprah's endorsement is worth a few million votes. Also, Oprah has a huge following among (i.e. influence over) southern white women. That is interesting. Someone should stand outside of a wal-mart in Macon, Georgia and ask the white ladies who they'll be voting for. I think the responses would be surprising. Oprah can't deliver an election, but her audience represents a nice bundle of votes. I don't see Barbara S., or any other celebrity at this moment, being able to do that.
-
Payback is a bitch!!!
[Read the article: Giuliani advisor: Doubt the NIE!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If the "founding neocon" is right, it just goes to show you shouldn't reveal the names of undercover operatives....ever! This is the intel community striking back at an administration that needed the reins pulled a long time ago.
-
Hepola and Manjoo you missed the boat on Randy
[Read the article: Hot off "The Wire"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Wow, were you guys watching the same episode that I was? When Randy was talking to Bunk, he called Bunk on his BS. Randy has already been betrayed by the police and is hip the the games they play. Don't you remember that Randy is in the group home because he was outed for being a snitch? His actions with Bunk were necessary measures so others in the home wouldn't think he was snitching again and also to show that if you mess with him he'll fight to survive. Randy is not a thug, he is kid who is alone against the world and must keep up the appearance of being a thug in order to keep the wolves of of him. He'll come around with the info as soon as Bunk comes up with a way to get him out of that crappy group home.
-
The Winner take all system...
[Read the article: Why Hillary Clinton should be winning]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Gave us George Bush in 2000. So a primary/caucus system that mimics the general election could still produce a less "deserving" candidate. I see your point, but really its BS to think that one system is better than another. It simply produces another type problem-if a problem arises. Sean you really sound like you're anti-Obama, instead of offering us some real solid analysis.