Letters to the Editor
Timelagged
Published Letters: 244 Editor's Choice: 12
-
It depends on what "ism" ism.
[Read the article: The "plagiarism" problem]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A post wherein I plagiarize this guy:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/the-wolfson-plagiarism-at_b_87209.html
-
Who writes:
"Here's a major problem for Senator Clinton's campaign if her staff and surrogates really want to engage in this so-called "plagiarism" debate. At the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, Senator Clinton employed what's called "anaphora" -- a common technique of repeating a word or phrase for emphasis in a speech:
I see an America where we stand up to the oil companies...
I see an America where we say that 47 million people uninsured...
I see an America where we have schools worthy...
I see an America where college is affordable again...
And so forth. It was a seriously awesome section of her Jefferson-Jackson speech. It's a shame that (again, as long as the gloves are off and there has to be this ridiculous "plagiarism" debate) she lifted the "I see an America" anaphora from other politicians, including then-Governor Jimmy Carter. June, 1976:
I see an America poised not only at the brink of a new century, but at the dawn of a new era of honest, compassionate, responsive government.
I see an America with a tax system that does not steal from the poor and give to the rich.
I see an America with a job for every man and woman who can work, and a decent standard of living for those who cannot.
I see an America in which my child and your child and every child receives an education second to none in the world.
I see an America in which Martin Luther King's dream is our national dream.
I see an America on the move again, united, its wounds healed, its head high, a diverse and vital nation, moving into its third century with confidence and competence and compassion, an America that lives up to the majesty of its Constitution and the simple decency of its people."
-
From heaven's sake to god's ears
[Read the article: Does Oscar hate his own smell?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]From heavens' sake if you haven't liked Oscar telecasts in the past -- whether it's because they don't pick your favorite movies, or you have the format or the production numbers, or the montages -- don't watch.
-zmulls
I absolutely love this. You read this line all the time here, but now people are actually using this absurd refrain to complain to professional critics "if you don't like it, just don't watch!"
Yes, that's a good work ethic for a journalist/critic: "If you have nothing nice to say about a subject, just don't write anything!"
The Academy Awards, an event once a year wherein we get to be reminded that whatever you may think of Hollywood's movies, it's far, far, worse at producing live theater.
-
What's scary? Easy
[Read the article: Why do conservatives really find the Obama campaign "scary"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"What I'm excited about is that he's going to be President not of the top ten percent or the rich, but OUR President."
Chanting, schmanting, it's lines like that, scariest thing people at places like the National Review can hear.
-
@rupert_c
[Read the article: This Modern World]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Is is supposed to be kept off the market to keep oil prices high and oil company profits even higher.
It depends on what the definition of "is is" is.
Otherwise, I tend to agree with you.
-
We're simply going to have to drop
[Read the article: The expertise of Dick Morris]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]any notion that being woefully, consistently, and completely wrong is any impediment to a career in punditry.
The list of proclimations and predictions by William Kristol that were proven wrong is astonishingly long, and his reward for such utter uselessness was to be given a much-coveted editorial slot at the NY Times no less.
Once we understand that it's only about name recognition, not any actual skill at what they do, we can get on with ignoring these people and listening to those who are actually aware of reality. Or better yet, figure it out for ourselves.
-
Right about Hitchens and Harris, wrong about Dawkins
[Read the article: I don't believe in atheists]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The author engages in the same gross stereotyping that he accuses others of.
Some of Sam Harris's work is a blatant sell of neocon agendas,with the US foriegn policy treated with kid gloves compared to how he dealt with other religion-driven agendas. His attacks on Chomsky were the first tip, along with Alan Dershowitz praising the attacks (not just the book, he singled out how great it was that Harris saw Chomsky as a lefty anti-Zionist extermist who must be silenced).
Hitchens's necon leanings are well known.
Dawkins, not so much, and I find his writing on the dangers of religion to be refreshing and important.
Sloppy thinking, to not see the difference. If his journalism has the same lazy work, that's not saying much for it.
-
Wow
[Read the article: "Hillary in the House"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We don't need no "bling"?
We need a woman to clean?
Wow.
Racist, sexist, and tasteless* all in one video.
(* the 8th, 9th, and 10th dwarfs, in the uncut version)