Letters to the Editor
gradysu
Published Letters: 156 Editor's Choice: 40
-
I have my doubts about Hillary too
[Read the article: When Rudy met Hillary]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I hate to give any credence to Republican talking points, but I think Hillary may be unelectable, or at best, make what should be a runaway into a nailbiter. She is a lightning rod for otherwise disaffected, disheartened, disgusted Republican voters. Is it fair that she is? No. But it may be true anyway. If you're in an airplane, waiting to skydive, and some creep slashes your parachute, are you going to use it anyway, just to prove a point? Or are you going to go find another, undamaged one before you jump? If a criminal sets your car on fire, are you going to get in just to spite him?
On another note, did Rudy ever actually listen to the lyrics to Captain Jack? It's about a ginormous suburban loser whose mother still makes his bed, who can't get laid, and who smokes pot because he has nothing else to do. Not exactly a role model for "Say Yes To Drugs!" On the other hand, watching him read the lyrics was right up there with Phil Hartman doing an impression of Charlton Heston reading from Madonna's "Sex" book (croaking craggily, "Aaay love my vagaaayna!").
Finally, To Anonymous: You may be a Republican, but judging by your username, not a proud one...
But thanks for the laugh! Hillary is a "Marxist" who "will do anything for money" is my favorite Republican smear since "Hillary is a lesbian who had an affair with Vince Foster." Oh yeah -- and then killed him! A black-widow lesbian!
-
You mention he's a convicted felon in the SIXTH paragraph?
[Read the article: Alleged hostage taker filed molestation suit]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And you do it almost as an aside? Oh, by the way, when he filed the lawsuit, he was a convicted rapist...
The headline is, "Alleged hostage taker filed molestation suit." Then the first five paragraphs are dedicated to the salacious details of a lawsuit filed by someone with a long history of mental illness, who just strapped road flares to himself, pretended to have a bomb, and took hostages. Does that give you any clues about his credibility? (And by the way, I agree with a previous letter writer -- no one is "molested" at 21.)
Then, in almost Columbo-esque fashion, in paragraph six, you mention almost on the way out the door that he's a convicted rapist.
I have no idea if this guy's suit had any merit, but logic--and the fact that absolutely nothing came of it, which is not the case with similar lawsuits--indicates that it's at the very least pretty dodgy. His felony conviction, on the other hand, is an actual -- oh, what's the word I'm looking for? -- FACT.
Yeesh!! How ironic that one of the headlines to the side of the story was Glenn Greenwald's piece about Michael Cooper demonstrating what real reporting is. Now if only someone could teach that to War Room...
-
Spend more time with your Mom
[Read the article: My dad is a writer -- a very, very bad writer!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It seems like your dad has completely cut her out of his life. If you think you've got it bad, imagine what it's like to live with this narcissistic emotional vampire.
-
Of course the Bushies are looking to bail out the banks...
[Read the article: Lining up for the mortgage rescue plan]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]..that's the kind of thing they always do. And it's appalling. But this is one fight that I find it hard to root for anyone in.
A full 55% of the people who have subprime mortgages qualified for fixed-rate mortgages, but they chose to gamble. The rest, who didn't even qualify for fixed rates, should have taken that as the red flag it was and seriously considered whether or not to buy a house at all. But they were, in a word that seems to get used all the time in these stories, "steered" toward ARMs. Apparently they were not grown-ups capable of reading a contract, or paying a couple of hundred dollars for a lawyer to spend an hour or two reading it and explaining it, or of realistically assessing their finances. They were helpless sheep. Well, boo freaking hoo.
The Democrats don't do themselves any favors politically -- or ethically, for that matter -- by proposing to bail people out of what were, in many cases, just flat-out stupid decisions. No one bailed out the people who lost money -- and in many cases, their minds -- gambling on the tech bubble. They could write off their losses on their tax returns, just as homeowners can if they sell at a loss. Period. That seems like enough of a burden to stick your fellow taxpayers with. We're all stuck in Bush's crappy economy, with the attendant insecurities, job losses, etc. to go with it. But we still have to take responsibility for our own decisions. And that includes the homeowners as well as the banks. Neither side should be bailed out.
Why should people who've lost money by overleveraging themselves to buy houses they couldn't afford be able to write down their mortgages to the value of the houses? They took a chance, buying into an overheated market and taking adjustable rate mortgages at a time when rates were at near-historic lows and appeared poised to move in only one direction. Why should I have any more sympathy for these people than I do for people who loaded up on Gateway stock at $100 per share?
This is a fight with no heroes on either side. The homeowners aren't odious on a large scale, like the predatory lenders and irresponsible banks, but they're not exactly sympathetic figures, either.