Letters to the Editor
tomreedtoon
Published Letters: 799 Editor's Choice: 80
-
Art Guerilla, here's your reading list.
[Read the article: "Brothers"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Art Guerilla, the only true importance of the JFK assassination was that someone could kill the President at all. That was thought to be politics of primitive nations. Guess what? We realized suddenly that we were primitive too. Jagger was right: it was "you and me" who killed him.
The best description of what Kennedy meant to America was in the book The Kennedy Imprisonment by Gary Wills. It took a very unsentimental look at the Kennedy family, and shows why JFK was nowhere near the holy man anyone thought he was. (And why, conversely, RFK was a better man, and his assassination a greater tragedy - and we know it was an Islamic nut who killed him, a guy who is idolized even today throughout the Middle East. The nuts are obsessing about the wrong Kennedy.)
And as far as what the assassination meant, look at Richard Schickel's book Intimate Strangers; The Process of Celebrity. Besides talking about Marilyn Monroe (someone who is also an obsession of conspiracy buffs) it gives a look at the assassin mindset vis-a-vis John Hinckley Jr.
My characterization of conspiracy buffs as egotistical, snotty jerks with pretensions of intellectual competence, however, is all my own, based on contact with the loathsome creatures. And I dislike them for the same reason I dislike Heather Havrilesky: they're frauds.
Since you seem so hot on conspiracy theories, reread Gerald Posner's Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK and drop all your preconcieved political attitudes. Rather than bitch about the "elite power" people of the past, why not focus on the ones we have now...starting with the Bush Family Evil Empire?
Or are you hoping to march into the White House and arrest George Bush for Kennedy's murder?
-
It would be so tempting to make fun of them. But...
[Read the article: Make room for Daddy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...in a poll Salon reported in War Room, "Rudy Giuliani leads Barack Obama 44-41 percent, Hillary Clinton 49-40 percent and Al Gore -- who isn't in the race -- 48-41 percent; John McCain is tied with Obama at 42 percent but leads Clinton 46-41 and Gore 47-41."
After a brief bit of hope, the Democratic Party is wimping out again. The Democratic candidates never really took off their pink tutus which they put on the first day of Bush's Presidency. They will be seated at the card table, preparing to explain the rules of bridge by Hoyle, and the Republican candidate and his lap dogs will pull out Glocks and cap 'em.
It would take monumental mistakes by the Republican candidates for them to lose, and it would take a Democratic candidate with courage, intelligence and a soul to take advantage of those mistakes. And none of them do.
All right, Gordon Wagner, it's time for you to post here, explaining why this post is wrong, and Salon should never, ever, talk about anything except your personal fetish of impeaching Bush, which is about as likely as a Democratic candidate not shooting him or herself in the foot.
-
What's the matter, Wagner? Where's your political screed?
[Read the article: Steal this comic]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why aren't you telling all of us that reading comic books, watching movies, or even using more than one piece of toilet paper insures that the Bush Family Evil Empire will continue to control America? You're off your game, dude. C'mon. Lay some of that navel-staring paranoia on us.
-
Two things about Rice...
[Read the article: Condi Rice never looks back]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First, even under torture, I would probably not be able to reproduce anything she said about anything. Maybe it's the bland voice, maybe it's the desire to "get along" that the article mentioned, but at least to me, she's never said anything memorable.
Second, I do recall the cartoons showing her. If the way she's been illustrated had been done about any publicly known black woman, or even a minor celebrity, they'd be called racist caricatures. Huge teeth, always scowling, awful looking if not deliberately frightening. But I don't recall anyone complaining. Maybe as she's sought to disassociate herself from the black community, she's no longer considered black and therefore ineligable for the protection of political correctness.
-
Reviewing what she hasn't seen? First? At length?
[Read the article: I Like to Watch]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The "chickens" return again. That's the minor stylistic offense of Havrilesky this time around. The major one is making a big deal out of National Bingo Night...based on its promos alone, since she hasn't seen the show!
Mind you, I think the show will stink on ice, too. But I haven't seen it either. It might have some minor element on it that might make it interesting, like the Hispanic guy (is it Guillermo from Jimmy Kimmel Live?) who sadly moans "No Bingo..." or the bald British guy who's the host (if they had to get someone bald and British, why not get Richard O'Brien from Rocky Horror and add a touch of sneer?).
It would have been enough for Havrilesky to say "I think this will suck purple pulsating donkey dicks" or whatever cute homoerotic phrase she likes this week, and then move on to other things. But taking up the first third of her review...an entire page...to reviewing something that doesn't officially exist and she hasn't yet...is horribly bad judgment. Is she having that much trouble filling a column? Does she have a word count to meet or something?