Letters to the Editor
kreniigh
Published Letters: 123 Editor's Choice: 10
-
@billcap
[Read the article: Dean wants superdelegates to come to a quick decision]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I know it's hard to ignore the sorts of things that you are citing -- the slurs and insults and attacks. But you have to.
You have no way of knowing who these people are, or what their real agendas are, or who they are really working for. If you allow yourself to be swayed into disliking Candidate A because Candidate A's supporters are acting like asshats on Internet forums, then you are allowing yourself to be owned by anyone with an interest in taking down Candidate A.
You could maybe do some research and figure out that some of them are sock puppets or freepers in disguise, but it's not worth the effort. Even that small effort means that they are making you waste your time.
Just ignore them. Don't base your judgment of any candidate on what some faceless person of unknown identity says on the Internet. Base your judgment on what the candidates do and say themselves. Otherwise, you're letting yourself be fooled.
-
@MacK..
[Read the article: Leahy: Clinton should quit]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think you are absolutely correct.
The only sane approach to reading a post in a forum like this is to read it and see if it challenges or supports what you already know to be true.
Sometimes you may find someone showing you a different angle on a topic. Someone may bring up something you hadn't considered before. You could learn something...
But don't take any of it as factual, including the identity and agenda of the writer! It's easy to use a big lie ("Clinton eats babies!") to conceal and convey a little lie ("people who don't like Clinton are crazy liars."). Don't be fooled!
-
They weren't the only two in the race back then
[Read the article: New Michigan delegate compromise offered]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How far will she go to prevent it? I have a prediction. Let's say Obama's camp offers to use the January results. The discussion would go something like this:
Obama campaign: Ok, so you get 55%, because you got 55% of the vote, and we get 40%, ok?
Clinton campaign: Uh, no. We get 55%, but you didn't get anything. That other 40% is for "uncommitted," so we should get half of those, too.
That's why none of these compromises will work.
Even worse -- people are forgetting that there were other candidates back then. How many of the "uncommitted" voters were for Edwards? It's hard to imagine that Hillary wouldn't bring that up.
On the other hand, if the primary had been allowed to proceed, and Obama had campaigned in MI, he might have done much better. It could have been Iowa a little earlier.
-
@Kate
[Read the article: "Money (That's What I Want)"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's quite simple.
Anyone using the sort of language you are describing should be assumed to be a saboteur trying to damage one or both campaigns by getting everyone stirred up and angry.
And anyone who keeps trying to make it an issue that such language is being used should also be assumed to be a saboteur trying to damage one or both campaigns by getting everyone stirred up and angry. I am looking at you.
-
Are they biased in an equal and opposite direction?
[Read the article: Can Stephen Colbert save America?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I do sometimes see and wonder about accusations about Stewart and the other being "just as biased" for the other side. Could they be valid?
The irony of that viewpoint is that it presupposes that both sides are equally valid, which is the sort of relativism for which the right usually despises the left. It's like saying that while it's true that criminals hate the police and are bad, the police are "just as biased" against the criminals and therefore equally bad. The difference is that the police really are the good guys (most of the time, darn that relativism) in the whole cop/criminal dynamic.
Do these comedians get a pass for their so-called "biases"? I think so, because over time I've come to realize -- using critical thinking instead of kneejerk reaction -- that they're actually right. They're on the side of the truth, and as Colbert observed: "The truth has a liberal bias."
-
on a side note
[Read the article: McCain gets confused about al-Qaida again]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...thanks for including a summary for those of us who can't watch the video clips -- which have been appearing more and more frequently in War Room. This is one of my favorite parts of Salon, and I was getting worried as more and more of it was youtubing away from me...
-
tiny hands?
[Read the article: Lieberman's unusual take on "the facts"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I know this is a post without substance, but good grief -- look at the man's hand at around 1:17. Is there some really wonky perspective at work there, or is his hand smaller than his mouth? Maybe he just has a giant head...?
-
Let me try to parse this
[Read the article: The problem with comparing Obama to Tiger Woods]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]OK, I think I have this figured out.
This reminded me of an similar comparison made not too long ago... Bill Clinton comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson. The intent there was to imply that Obama would do just as badly as Jackson despite winning South Carolina. So it's wrong to compare Obama to a black man who he doesn't resemble and who failed in the political arena he's pursuing, and it's also wrong to compare Obama to a black man with whom he has a lot in common and who has been very successful in an analogous situation (breaking into the old white men club). So really, you can't compare Obama to any black man without being charged with racism?
Now consider the reaction if a liberal had made the Tiger Woods comparison. It would have been seen as totally positive, as praise. I'll make that comparison right now: Obama and Tiger have a lot in common!
So really, it's not the comparison, but the source and the intent. In context, the audience is expecting the speaker to put down McCain's rivals -- it's what you do at these things. And he chose... Tiger Woods? That's what's telling. Tiger Woods = bad. And the audience heard that 'dog whistle' and went, yeah, Tiger Woods bad, Obama bad too, yep. Ha ha.
So the question is not, "why is it bad to compare Obama to Tiger," but "why is comparing someone to Tiger an insult?"