Letters to the Editor
kreniigh
Published Letters: 124 Editor's Choice: 10
-
Purple Heart bandages, anyone?
[Read the article: Covering the coverage: Conservative blogs on the Petraeus/Crocker hearing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Weren't these the same people who attended the Republican National Convention wearing 'Purple Heart" bandages to make fun of Kerry?
Their feigned outrage at this ad fills me with utter contempt.
-
"Aw Yeah!"
[Read the article: Finding the Britney Spears VMA video online]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"She opened the show with her new song, 'Gimme More,' while showing off a healthy bod in a bedazzled bikini. Aw yeah! We knew our girl would pull it off ... We know you're screaming gimme more, more, more Brit right about now ... and we're right there with ya'll!"
Now imagine this being said by Steve Carell's character on the Office, bad fake urban accent and all.
Anyone who says "aw yeah" or "ya'll" [sic] in the context of marketing should be placed in public stocks so that people can mock them and hurl rotten fruit, because apparently that's what it will take to make them feel the shame that they so richly deserve.
-
'Passenger Bill of Rights'
[Read the article: Opus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Nothing will fix this until the Federal government legislates a Passenger Bill of Rights. And frankly, I'm for that bill including regulations on seat width and seat pitch (the distance between seats). If it cases fares to go up a bit, I'm all for it. Avoiding the discomfort, and the illnesses (such as deep vein thrombosis) are well worth the cost in my opinion.
Ugh, please, it's not the government's job to manage customer satisfaction for an industry. This is an opportunity for some airline to distinguish itself by improving customer service, not a case for legislation.
-
My point exactly
[Read the article: Tom the Dancing Bug]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I no longer consider religious people who point to passages in the Old Testament -- particularly Leviticus -- to support their prejudices, to be "Christians".
Anyone who adopted the Old Testament 100% literally would be a sociopath in the modern world. Last time I checked, parents weren't allowed to kill their children for disobedience, and stoning will land you in jail or the psych ward.
Those who pick-and-choose verses from the OT to justify anti-gay beliefs or other such bullshit are, at best, "Jehovanists" and NOT Christians. Jesus came to Earth with a, whaddayacall, NEW Testament that replaced the old one. Insisting on a partial enforcement of the old laws while pretending to follow them in their entirety is disingenuous at best.
-
but but but Clinton
[Read the article: Craig lawyer: He may stay in the Senate no matter what]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As for the Senate Ethics Committee? Brand said he thinks it's "inconceivable" that the Senate "will open the door to bringing cases against senators" for committing "misdemeanors that have nothing to do with the performance of official duties."
He's right; Congress only does that when there's a Republican majority.
-
Hating Wes Anderson
[Read the article: "The Darjeeling Limited"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I had a conversation just last week with a friend, in which we said pretty much the same things as Stephanie says here, except, you know, more conversationally. I was pleased to read this review and realize that we're not the only ones who feel this way.
It's not hate; if anything, his movies always look like exactly the sorts of movies I want to see. But there never seems to be a "there" there when I watch them. It's more... disappointment than hate.
-
a naive observation
[Read the article: How did the T get in LGBT?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't know much about this topic, but it's obviously one of those issues where no matter what comment anyone makes, you get the same explosion of acrimonious debate over and over. So let me foolishly put in an observation after reading a few pages of comments.
It seems to me that both sides want the same thing (even though in the heat of acrimony they let themselves believe otherwise). One side is saying, "now, see, when we break these things down into smaller and smaller categories, we end up with tiny categories that will cause the whole endeavor to fail, so we have to exclude those." And the other side is saying, "no, when we break things down into smaller and smaller categories, we end up with tiny categories that have to be acknowledged and included, or else it's a huge betrayal."
Can't there be a bill that covers everyone without specifically enumerating every category?
-
Just to be pedantic...
[Read the article: A "loyal Bushie" surveys the field]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I guess the fact that Huckabee thinks that evolution is just a theory is less peculiar to Bartlett than his name.
Evolution is just a theory. Huckabee, however, said that he doesn't believe in it, and thus demonstrated that he's willfully stupid, pandering to the willfully stupid, or both.
-
@ mizbinkley
[Read the article: Ron Paul, sitting prettier than McCain]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You're cracking me up today. Especially the bit about not finding solace and peace in a thread about Ron Paul...
-
fairness
[Read the article: This Modern World ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If you took this idea -- that accusations of wrongdoing and the desire to see it prosecuted are nothing more than "hate" -- and applied it to any number of situations, you'd be accused of being a coddling, kumbaya-singing, lefty moonbat.
Authoritarians insist that there's no "hate" involved in prosecution of crimes, and scoff at notions that police might be unfair in stopping black drivers proportionately or that border patron vigilantes might be racist or that sometimes criminals get brutalized by overzealous cops. But when it's one of their own, suddenly the desire for justice is just "hate".
The true measure of fairness and justice is when you're able to apply it to people on your own "side". And no, "they did it first" isn't an excuse.
-
Where's the nuclear option?
[Read the article: Senate rejects war funds tied to timetable]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I thought the Republicans were morally opposed to filibusters?
Weren't they upset not too long ago about the way a Democratic minority was threatening to filibuster?
Why the hell don't the Democrats FORCE the Republicans to filibuster, and then trot out the Republican's own words and rhetoric about the "nuclear option"?
Why?
I may never vote for a national Democratic candidate again.
-
meh
[Read the article: Janet's got a gun]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not a big NRA fan, and I'm mildly alarmed by people who make a whole lifestyle out of guns and gun ownership, but I don't see any problem with a woman taking a gun on a long roadtrip for her own protection.
Isn't there any middle ground left on any issues any more?