Letters to the Editor
swilldog
Published Letters: 184 Editor's Choice: 20
-
response to your PS
[Read the article: That explains everything]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First off, I'm not ruling out the fact that the Bush administration isn't a cabal of idiots -- one would have to be an idiot on the grandest scale to provoke what will be a generations-long struggle of catastrophic unrest in the Middle East. But having said that, it's not the bumbling idiot variety we're dealing with. It's the ideologically blind, too damn smart for their own good kind of idiocy at play here.
In response to your points:
Cheap oil is good for the masses, and it's plainly clear that this president (and American politics in general, especially the GOP) isn't about the masses. Many elements of business would be pleased to have cheaper oil, but ultimately they just build oil expenses into their costs of doing business. If an industry can't sufficiently account for more expensive oil and the subsequent costs, then I'm fairly sure the Bush administration and their ilk aren't overly concerned with that industry's long term health -- those industries certainly aren't contributing to the Republican party. And like I said, these are first and foremost oil men we've got running the country.
I'm certain the Saudis definitely do fear a moderate and economically vital Iran. A vibrant, democratic, semi-secular Shia Iran is the antithesis of the oppressive, freakazoid Sunni/Wahabbi (sp?), plutocracy of Saudi Arabia. If and when the moderating trends occurring in Iran come to fruition, Iran will become the undisputed heavyweight in the Middle East -- and that title is clearly in the hands of the Saudis right now. Time is not on the side of the House of Saud, and they will do anything and everything they can do to delay the inevitable.
-
reading retention FTW!
[Read the article: That explains everything]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Maybe it's convenient for you to hope that poor people suffer more on the pyre of your good intentions. I don't. I suspect poor people don't either.
I doubt anyone will be looking at this since it's now well below the fold, so to speak, but c'mon, anon. What part of ANYTHING that I wrote indicates to you that I'm advocating expensive oil so that "poor people suffer more"? Are you really that incapable of following the written word?
-
equal opportunity bad things
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]For those of y'all throwing around Leonard Little and Ray Lewis and decrying the gross miscarriage of justice that poor wittle Ookie is now suffering over his mistreatment of lesser creatures, allow me to introduce you to two nifty concepts:
Apples.
Oranges.
Or perhaps in this particular case it should be "rotten apples" and "rancid oranges." Participating in dog fighting, killing someone in a drunken driving accident, and obstructing justice are all Bad Things. Can we all agree on that? Or do y'al expect the rest of us to shrug it off when someone does something illegal and monstrously immoral to something other than a human being?
Even if you discount the ethical lapses of being involved in this sort of lifestyle, even if you are willing to forgive Vick for lying to the league about his involvement, he's still stuck with this monster of an albatross hanging around his neck: Dog fighting is a dirty dirty dirty business that leaves its higher profile participants in a highly vulnerable and exploitable state. It's one of the darkest corners of the illegal gambling world. So even if you're so callous that you could give two shits about the mistreatment of the animals (and shame on anyone who falls into this category), it should still be clear that it would take a Herculean effort for Vick to ever emerge from his current status as untouchable for the NFL.
Sometimes a harsh societal backlash against a grossly misbehaving black man is just a harsh societal backlash, and not a lynching. Ya dig?
-
okay, we get it, wes
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You're contrarian. You're trying to be funny in a "lookit how absurd I can be" kind of way. Hate to break it to ya, but it gets progressively less funny (if it ever was) about 15 posts later. So perhaps it's time to move on, no?
-
@ anon 08:30
[Read the article: Quote of the Day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What color is the sky on your world?
-
snarkity snarkity snooo!
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]To the LW who made the Nat X/Thrasher comparison. Spot on. It's rare I actually laugh out loud when reading these letters.
Some Nat X gems about The Man for those who want to walk down memory lane:
- "...The same Man who made White-Out, a tricky substance that only eliminates black letters!"
- "...The same Man who made the black jelly beans the worst tasting jelly beans in the bag!"
- "I'm talking about the same Man who calls the black cat bad luck and the white cat pussy."
All chuckles aside, I'll give ya this, Thrasher: You're in earnest.
But for you to label some of the more well-written, well-reasoned counter-arguments against your posts -- no matter how much of a kernel of truth your posts may contain -- as pedestrian? Well, it's a bit like the pot calling the kettle...
Nah, too easy. Carry on.
-
Blockbuster lost me
[Read the article: Why Blockbuster is gaining on Netflix]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...when they decided to take the "push" approach to delivery. I remember fairly clearly the day a few years back: I walk into the store, looking for a decent new release. They had 1 stack of the movie in question -- I forget which, but it got fairly good critical acclaim and did fairly well at the box office -- and all 3 copies were out.
However, there were stacks upon stacks of straight-to-video crapola as far as the eye could see. Some suit somewhere decided to make a deal with some two-bit movie studio, or there was some kind of sinister parent company "synergy" BS going on, and now their stores were offering LESS of what the public wanted to see and MORE of the crap the company wanted to sell.
I walked out the door, and only under the rarest and most desperate of circumstances have I ever set foot back inside a Blockbuster again. And I certainly can't envision a scenario where I'd trust them to not try and pull the same trick (or worse) if and when they achieve market dominance of the mail-order market.