Letters to the Editor
Sartre
Published Letters: 19 Editor's Choice: 4
-
Hooray.
[Read the article: This is your penis; this is a condom on your penis]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The concern for me when reading the bit was the age of the students, so I went back and re-read to find it. A "tenth-grade" teacher... let's see, when I was in high school, tenth grade was the sophomore year, making the kids only 15 to 16 years old, right?
That, to me, is the perfect age to be exposing students to this reality. Whether they are learning at home abstinence or safe-sex, they are all old-enough to be aware of the physical reality of sex and what an erection is...
This teacher should be commended for taking the steps to acknowledge this and help students learn about the options.
-
Good grief...
[Read the article: I was conned by JT Leroy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]After reading the first few letters, I had to ask myself: Huh?
It's ironic to me that the spite thrown at the author of this story, revolving around the lack of the back-story, consistently refers to the authors failures as a human being. As a reader, I had no idea what the letter-writers were talking about (as they failed to provide a context for their criticism).
The author did not provide enough (or any) backstory about her subject. The complainers who criticized her mercilessly provided no support for why they thought so little of her.
I could go research the author and figure out what she did to so inflame the tempers of those who complained. But I'm honestly not interested.
I did know of JT Leroy's background. I found his stories fantastical, at best, and dismissed them early on. Did I think he was fake? Never thought much about it. I didn't care.
But when I opened Salon today and saw the headline article, I clicked through and read it with much interest. I appreciated the tale, and I thank Salon for publishing it.
Salon is not journalism. Never has been. It is openly biased towards a liberal bent - that's why most of the readers come here. People like to be reassured of their own beliefs.
Those complaining that a story about a media hoax doesn't fit within the screens of Salon, have a rose-colored view of Salon.
-
The writer's statements are misleading...
[Read the article: Letter to Salon from Newt Gingrich]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm no fan of Newt - never liked him much, even though I'm more centrist than Salon.
But the very statement the author pulls from his own article demonstrates a clear implication that the 'penalty' was a result of a finding of wrongdoing. Paying the fine was due to his being accused.
And the author acknowledges this wasn't the case. I do not believe either, nor does it matter, what Gingrich's mindset was when paying the fine or where the funds came from.
Citing other sources to support a misrepresentation is shabby behaviour at best. Just because others do it wrong, does not make it right. And it wasn't the term that was objectionable, it was the phrasing. Careful, obvious, intentional phrasing.
Poor reporting.
-
Public figures...
[Read the article: The judge's wife cried. Big whoop]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Public figures, their wives and adult children, should always be resilient and able to hide their emotions. Iron-willed. Stony.
Fine.
So think as little of this woman as you wish.
Just know your comments, in a silly attempt to be clever, say more about you than they do about her.
-
Nice story
[Read the article: You don't know Jack?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks for a story about:
a) something new I wasn't aware of
b) a topic I would've thought I was uninterested in
c) prose that was clever at times, funny at time, both at times
d) a three minute read to help entertain and engage me during a stressful day
All in all, exactly the reason Salon exists.
-
WTF?
[Read the article: A little antiabortion propaganda for your commute]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Come on - people can advertise all they want. And individuals can read and decide for themselves.
This is just embarassing. What are the other letter-writers saying? Vandalism is a good thing? Just because you don't agree with a position doesn't give you the right to vandalize.
It's also ridiculous that the client would expect the vendor to provide additional time to make up for the defacements. Outdoor advertising is always at risk of this, and that risk is written into the costs. If your message is such that it gets a bunch of militant vandals to respond by scrawling their own ignorance over your broadsides, so be it.
-
Reality Check
[Read the article: Why we're publishing the new Abu Ghraib photos]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]While I can, to some degree, understand why so many are trying to compare the publication fo these images to the non-publication of the cartoons, I don't believe that's the strongest point to be made.
I also understand the complaint that this is old news - but that's not the strongest point.
Some say they should not have been published out of fear of reprisals - and that's not the strongest point.
To me, my fear is that this is nothing new. That these incidents have happened throughout history. And sometimes it is the good guys who behave badly.
Does this make the good guys bad? Not really. It makes them human. It's a sad fact that people in certain situations can behave very badly. Look at the Milgram Experiment for further evidence.
The strongest point here is something I thought we all learned from Viet Nam. The explosion of media coverage brings an immediacy and reality to the public that the public isn't comfortable facing.
The military has always had to do the dirty jobs - some with valid reasons and positive results, some with shadowy rationales and demonic results. How one feels about the situation is a matter of perspective.
We have to get to a point where evidence of existent evil does not damn a whole culture.
Do I think the images should have been published. No. There's no value in it except for the self-interest of the publishers political viewpoint.
Had the media been capable of such widespread disemination of unfavorable content throughout the Civil War or WWI or WWII - I am certain we would have seen the same type of activity or worse. And even the most liberal find a hard time condemning the end results of those conflicts. Time will tell about Iraq.
Should it be minimized - certainly. Can it be eradicated - no. Not until we find a level of world peace that is a long way off.