Letters to the Editor
Timelagged
Published Letters: 244 Editor's Choice: 12
-
bSerious
[Read the article: Opus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So you're telling me that you do experimentation to see if your belief in God has any validity? And/or that if you did, and the results tended to show that there was no God, that you'd then say "Well okay then, that's that! Guess I was wrong!"
Right.
Sure you would.
The very essence of religious faith is that you have it despite evidence, not because of it.
Say what you will about religion, and there are elements about its tradition and moral codes and many other things that are valuable and worthy of lots of discussion. However this malarky you're peddling here that it's an experimental science is an insult to intelligent readers.
-
It's not "contrarian" compared to most of what's out there
[Read the article: Hillary without tears]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes you see: Man has affairs, woman doesn't immediately divorce him, thus woman is pathologically damaged and needs tabloid analysts like Paglia to lay out how twisted and terminally sick she is.
First of all in Europe they'd find all of this insane right off that bat.
It's such a....coincidence! that these are the same views put forth by the rabid right, but here visited on us monthly by this... what was that word some of the Paglia supporters here use.. ah yes, "contrarian".
What I'm thinking is that if Bill O'Reilly were given a column in Salon, some of you would write to say hey, keep this guy, we need a breath of fresh air around here, he's a contrarian, not the usual echo chamber blather, etc etc.
I'm absolutely certain that you would in fact. And yes, it would all be true, in a sense, it certainly would be exposing us to badly-written, poorly-thought-out, boringly predictable knee-jerk views that aren't generally what people who read this zine are thinking.
The same kind of thing that fills the airwaves and printwaves virtually without pause, out there in mainstream land. This is why I read Salon, to avoid that sensationalist nonsense.
By the way, the extreme right LOVES Camille. They cite her columns all the time. "Look, even a "liberal" admits we're right!" they love to say.
-
Yeah you all say that now
[Read the article: "We're all fascists now"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]but I bet if Salon ran a column by this guy once a month, some praise would start dribbling in for his "fresh views" and "non-echo-chamber opinions", and pretty soon you'd have a small but loud minority writing letters saying "Yeah! Contrarianism! You tell em Jonah! Left is right! Hitler was a hippie! All those climate change scientists are wrong! Madonna is a real artist!"
And then guess who you'd have?
Then Salon would say well, SOME of our readers don't like him, but some do! because clearly they've never been very good at math.
And he'd be here for good.
Sound familiar?
-
I don't know about the composite
[Read the article: The Carla Bruni obsession ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]name for the whole thing, but I do think that "Snarko" should be the term for any snide comments made about it all. (In keeping with his nick in France, "Sarko")
-
--Anonymous
[Read the article: The Carla Bruni obsession ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]No I included that because I assume most people outside of France haven't heard the Sarko thing. Seems unlikely.
Not likely that I'm impressed with speaking French after living in France so many years, it would be pretty weird if I didn't.
You seem a bit impressed with the fact that you speak English though. Or was it the fact that you knew the French nickname? In any case the only arrogant post I saw was yours.
-
Consider the source
[Read the article: The Carla Bruni obsession ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Cold and immobile
France is in terrible shape. I was there during a transportation strike. Do they have one every month? They were all miserable and by the way, never say you are an American. The architecture and art is nice though.
--Anonymous
No, it's just you. Most Americans receive a warm reception, it's people like you who don't.
I'd prefer living in France to the US any day of the week, even during a strike.
-
I find myself hoping
[Read the article: The 2008 presidential mash-up]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]that it's Huckabee, of course. I also find myself however hoping it ends up being Romney, even his name sounds already like the answer to a triva quiz about who the GOP ran in 2008.
I also hope its Rudy, which seems increasingly unlikely, and I also find myself hoping it's McCain, actually. Dust off the "Bush kiss" photo, and all the Democratic nominmee has to do is become like Rudy: "McCain" a verb, and "Bush". Over and over and over.
I think the GOP is in bad shape, in other words.
-
Logic fails you
[Read the article: CNN's John King responds]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]powersjq
You've completely missed with your attempt at logical analysis. Not only does GG in the article clearly address "those who respond", as someone else pointed out, he's also limiting the thought to those who he's singled out for criticism in the first place. If you're not one of those, then I can't imagine why you'd feel so defensive.
Listen, we're in a mess. Among the many reasons, the lack of any real scrutiny of this government for the past seven years by the nation's press stands is a large one. Even if the writer had launched a generalized statement about journalists coddling those they cover it would be valid. If every journalist isn't guilty of this, enough are to make it more than a fair target for a general critique.
-
@Proximity Warning
[Read the article: Joe Klein rewrites his role in the 1990s]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think we owe you a debt of gratitude for pointing out so often and repeatedly how all of Greenwald's posts are about meaningless and trivial matters. That you take so much time to write posts not only about Greenwald's meaninglessness, but about what other posters have written in response to him (which is all presumably even more meaningless, by definition) is a true sacrifice of your valuable and important time.
Your mention that "I had to point this out at length the other day to some particularly stupid posters" shows your true dedication to what must be a painful duty, taking time from a life that is clearly filled with far less trivial matters.
For your dedication, I salute you.