Letters to the Editor
Older and Wiser
Published Letters: 57 Editor's Choice: 19
-
Ancient Chinese Secret, Huh?
[Read the article: My husband has Chinese ancestry but his son wants to keep it secret]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]OMG. What on earth is this letter about? Maybe LW discovered an interesting genealogical fact (or factoid) about her husband. She can share it with her husband, and/or relatives, friends, whomever, with his consent.
But why does she feel compelled to tell this to a step-granddaughter, unless she's already established a close, personal relationship with her? As the girl is now an adult, I'd imagine they can talk about anything they like, and she wouldn't need the young woman's parents' consent.
But if she mentioned this to her parents (the stepson and wife) and it upset them, why not just drop it? How does this bit of information affect their lives and identities? Maybe they are racist, that's possible. But maybe, just maybe, they feel that this woman (the LW) has a compulsion to stir things up and attract attention in instrusive, unwanted ways.
I smell "drama queen" here, and maybe that's the reason she's not welcome. Maybe it's not the first time she went to their home with some bit of "news" or "information" that she wanted to foist upon them that didn't exactly enhance the quality of their lives.
There's something very peculiar about the "urgency" the LW expresses in this letter about informing all and sundry about this "important" data. If she hasn't already established a long-running, close relationship with the young woman, then she oughtn't seek her out to tell her something that in no way affects her life for good or ill.
LW sounds like a pokey-nose, meddling busybody, or, as what the Chinese would call, a yenta.
-
Colbert Not In Control
[Read the article: Fondling Stephen Colbert]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I, too, thought it was funny at first, then started to cringe, myself. My take on it is that Stephen was not in on it, and was flustered not only by Jane's sitting there (and her provocative kisses), but not getting the heck up to continue the interview.
Stephen's famous for controlling his interviews to the point of deliberate misinterpretation ("Thank you for supporting our President...so, which would be your choice, Bush--great President, or our greatest President?"). It's always hilarious, and of course the guest would have to re-focus on his or her own point of view.
But, in this case, Jane took control in the physical (and sexual) sense, and Stephen apparently (and understandably) wasn't in a position (so to speak) to order her off his lap or make her look bad. I think he did his best under the circumstances (I found it really cute when he sheepishly mentioned his wife).
So, in essence, the point is not only that Jane Fonda continued to do something that was perhaps okay only for a few seconds, but that Stephen LOST CONTROL of the interview, while she was focused on the sexuality of the event.
This, to me, defines what I found somewhat disturbing, and perhaps it defines Joan's reactions, as well.
-
Great Recap
[Read the article: Finale wrap-up: "24"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I laughed (silently, I'm at work) all the way through Heather's article. It precisely expressed my "gee whiz, what crap!" feelings since about the fourth or fifth hour of this "24."
I thought they really had something with the nuke, but as the "story" pressed on, I kept asking, "Uh--does anyone remember that a NUCLEAR BOMB went off in some non-descript suburb of California?" Oh, that's right--the updates could be seen on Fox News! Duh!
I also don't appreciate the writers chickening out regarding making our old nemeses, the Rooskies and Chinese, the bad guys yet again, and totally sidetracking the Middle Eastern villains who-uh-remember?--started this whole thing.
I never really understood the exact nature of Jack's brother's involvement, along with dear ol' dad. Remember when the brother showed up in a previous "24" as a mysterious "puppetmaster" on the phone who had obvious power, but there was no clear connection to whom, or why? If they had to make him Jack's brother, at least they could have presented a "refresher" scene as to his villainy and the connections therein.
The penultimate hour was (as Heather hilariously pointed out) such a bore that I spent the time tidying up my living room. The last hour was so phoned in and by-the-numbers that it just made me mad. And Jack's threatening of Heller--oh, yeah, great way to treat the guy you planned to be your father-in-law! (No loan for the down payment for you, young man!)
I actually never, even previously, felt any chemistry between Jack and Audrey. It just didn't do anything for me, and I always frankly found Audrey annoying, which also goes for Nadia. Why can't they get some women with real charisma?
And remember when Chloe was so quirky that you felt she might have Asperger's? I don't mean that in a derogatory way--I thought it was an interestng depiction of someone who may have had that kind of condition, yet was hired for her intelligence and ability. Now, she's pretty much like anyone else, and has emotional reactions when previously, she had none, or not the type that was expected--what's up with that? I think it's a complete betrayal of the origin of her character. Of course, she had to faint out of nowhere 'cuz she's preggers--how boring!
And Jack's final "to be or not to be" close-up. Cwap. What a let-down, especially after the shocker of last season, when he was kidnapped (even if it was by the Chinese--but there was a reason for that, which the writers handled adeptly).
Worst...season...ever.
If the writers are going to come up with yet another, they'd better get with it. And leave the ol' USSR and Red China out of it, for chrissakes.
Hmmmm....maybe take on Michael Moore?