Letters to the Editor
Nita Martin
Published Letters: 271 Editor's Choice: 62
-
Zandru
[Read the article: Gonzales' shame]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I do know it's reins, not reigns. And I do know the difference. Although, as you said, it's kind of correct in the abstract.
IT WAS A TYPO. And in my blood red eyesight these days, I didn't catch it. Sorry to annoy you...I myself am so terminally pissed off all the time over the sorry state of everything that it's a wonder I can manage to spell my own name.
My favorite is people who don't know the difference between they're and their. Although...again, in my blood red vision, Im sure I have accidently typed one or the other and not "catched" it in time.
Not all people are spelling and vocabulary challenged. Some just type on autopilot while their brain works up ahead. And make mistakes they didn't intend.
-
He just doesn't get it...
[Read the article: Craig: The press made me plead guilty]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I continue to be amazed by Craig's insistence on one overwhelming claim: I am not gay. I have never been gay.
It's not about whether he is gay. It's about shopping for sex in a bathroom stall.
He wasn't arrested for being gay.
However, that seems to be the overwhelming concern in his world. So...I am assuming if he had been soliciting women for sex, it wouldn't be any big deal.
Republicans seem to have a real (pardon the pun) hard on about everyone else's sex life. Abstinence, sanctity of marriage....blah blah blah.
But when it comes to their own, it's only problematic when it's gay sex. And you get caught.
They are prudes on paper, and hypocrites in the bedroom. Or bathroom stall. Or public park. Or page's dorm. Or behind the pulpit. Or.....
-
"Of course," he said, "I believe I have an unfair edge over most of my colleagues right now -- my mind works faster than my mouth does."
[Read the article: Cowardice and courage]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Based on that alone, I'm almost compelled to move to South Dakota just so I can vote for him.
Clearly, his brain is functioning. On the other side, the Republicans have been known to prop up virtually dead senators just for the vote.
If I were Johnson, my answer to any Republican machinations about his condition would be two words. Strom Thurmond.
I would also like to suggest Ronald Reagan as the second answer, but the uproar over the suggestion that St. Ronnie was losing it long before his alzheimers was made public would be just too distracting.
So I'm sticking with Strom Thurmond. And pulling for Tim Johnson.
-
The Psychic Network School of Journalism?
[Read the article: John Edwards turns on his fellow Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I take offense at the extreme cynicism and baseless interpretations that Michael Sherer attaches to the positions of John Edwards.
For instance:
After Clinton made the ridiculous statement that lobbyists actually represent most of us folks, as Sherer puts it:
"Edwards sent an open letter to Obama,
asking him to join in calling for the
Democratic Party to ban all lobbyist contributions
to any federal candidate or committee,
a clear ploy designed to tarnish Obama's
appeal as a reformer.
Since when does asking others to make it an ethical playing field by giving up corporate shill money constitute a "ploy to tarnish" the other candidates?
This article is full of similarly snarky and baseless "clairvoyance" regarding the motives and actions of Edwards.
It's a sad day when ethics, compassion, intelligence, sincereity, and above all an understanding that the President of the United States should represent those of us who aren't political elitists or the greedy corporations that prop them up is viewed as no more than a "ploy".
I am not in any way disparaging Clinto or Obama. I respect and admire them both.
However, to paint Edwards' positions as "ploys", when they are the least self-serving on the current campaign table is a dispicable, unprofessional, and blatantly transparent page right out of (in addition to the mind-reading theory) the Bill O'Reilly Big Book of Commentary For Dummies.
-
Ooops...
[Read the article: John Edwards turns on his fellow Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And this is why I am not a proofreader..I always see the mistakes AFTER I hit publish. Clinton, despicable. Maybe more. Please excuse my haste. Thanks.
-
Mr. Spud...a little reality check if you please....
[Read the article: John Edwards turns on his fellow Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Jack Abrahamoff isn't in prison for writing personal checks. He, like other lobbyists, funnels big money from those who pay his big salary. To say a lobbyist can only make the same contribution I do is just ridiculous.
As for:
Hillary: "You know, a lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans, they actually do. They represent nurses, they represent social workers, they represent—yes, they represent corporations that employ a lot of people".
These are unions, and often their needs drive up prices and drive down services for others. Which is ok. Even necessary. But it is not ok to submit only that they "represent real Americans", as though they represent all Americans.
And to lump the very corporations that will practically kill to squash unions into the same category as those unions is just absurd. Most corporations that "employ a lot of people" are lobbying for opportunities to pay them less, to offshore their jobs, to cut benefits, and to otherwise negatively impact the quality of their lives while corporate profits rise.
And, last but not least, when did you see big money being thrown at Washington by poor people, minorities, tree people, environmentalists? What little grassroots assistance they muster is generally to fight the big money lobbies that threaten their cause in the interest of corporate profits and tax subsidies for the wealthy.
While John Edwards understands this, in my opinion, it's also reasonable to questionable whether others do. We are supposed to know what the candidates think. Compare them. And make careful decisions.
Otherwise, we will end up with another George W. Bush.