Letters to the Editor
Mike LeP
Published Letters: 399 Editor's Choice: 6
-
Obama didn't win the popular vote?
[Read the article: Clinton die-hards want floor vote at convention]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The only way Obama didn't win the popular vote is if you include the full votes from Michigan and Florida and exclude the vote from four caucus states that didn't keep a tally (three of which he won). And I don't know why you'd exclude estimates from four caucus states but include the results from Puerto Rico, whose residents can't participate in the fall but gave Hillary a 250,000 vote advantage over Obama. You're going to exclude Washington but include Puerto Rico?
These continued efforts to somehow get Hillary the nomination have gone way beyond pathetic and are now deeply delusional. I understand being disappointed when your candidate doesn't win the nomination - I was very disappointed that Kerry was the nominee in '04 instead of Dean. But there comes a point for most people where you accept reality and move on.
I don't know why some Hillary supporters are so dead set against Obama as the nominee, even months after she conceded, but I have my suspicions.
-
@ Rosenkavalier
[Read the article: Clinton die-hards want floor vote at convention]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"I know, as well, that there is a certain number of former Obama supporters who wish they had an alternative to either McCain or Obama now that he has shown his colors with his 'new' positions on FISA, gun control, abortion, and patriotism."
You have every right to complain about Obama's flip flop on FISA - it was indefensible. However, for folks like you and Joan Walsh to cry about Obama's positions on gun control and abortion (or in her case, healthcare) strikes me as either disingenuous or incredibly naive. Obama's positions on these issues haven't changed at all and you only have yourself to blame for just now waking up to the fact that he's more a pragmatist than a liberal. Had you been paying better attention for this past year, these positions wouldn't be a surprise.
I had no idea Obama has an official position on patriotism. Is he pro or con?
-
Terrible advice
[Read the article: I'm sleeping with my best friend's fiancé ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You got the first part right Cary, but totally blew it on the second part.
First, this woman needs to end the relationship immediately. Not just because it's cruel and unfair to her friend, but also because this guy has proved himself to be an untrustworthy scumbag. He's been cheating on his fiancee for pretty much their entire relationship - does your letter writer actually believe he isn't sleeping with other women? The man is a manipulator and a sociopath, praying on two women who seem to be pathetically insecure.
Dump him.
Second, your letter writer absolutely does owe it to her friend to tell her everything about what's been doing on to prevent her from marrying this creep! What kind of person lets her supposedly best friend go through with marrying a guy who's been cheating on her? If this were a one-time deal and the fiance made an awful mistake in the heat of passion and felt horribly guilty ... then, maybe I'd question whether it's worth wrecking her friend's otherwise strong commitment for the sake of honesty.
But since we know the fiance has cheated before, is cheating now, and says there's something missing in his relationship (so I'm assuming he'll keep on cheating), there is no question whatsoever your letter writer should tell her friend. I can't believe you let her off the hook and even suggested she get married and raise kids near her friend, who may or may not ever find out that her husband is a scumbag.
Just awful.
-
The answers to Eric's questions
[Read the article: The Obama cover kerfuffle]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Eric:
I can only speak for myself here, but the answer to every one of your rhetorical questions is "no."
I'm not offended by the cover, I don't believe it crossed a line, I'm not worried about how it will be perceived by people who don't read the New Yorker, and I don't find it disconcerting because it's clearly not based in truth.
I just think it was bad satire.
Satire is supposed to be an absurd exaggeration of the truth. This cover isn't an exaggeration; it's an imitation of ideas and images about Obama that you can find on right-wing blogs any day of the week. It would not be surprising at all if some similar outlet ran the exact same picture in total sincerity. Read through the comments sections at the National Review, Townhall, World Net Daily, etc. and you'll see dozens of comments from members who think the cover is funny because they sincerely believe it to be based in truth.
The cover isn't funny because it's no more absurd than reality. The right wing has set the bar for self-pardoy so high that it's almost impossible to satirize anymore. The New Yorker cover is a hodge-podge of stale ideas. It's satire alright. It's just not very funny. If anything, it should've been more offensive.
-
I'm on the fence ...
[Read the article: "The Dark Knight"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I didn't really like Batman Begins much so I'm reluctant to see The Dark Knight despite the near universal accolades (Stephanie's review notwithstanding).
The tone of the first pick didn't bother me. But I thought Katie Holmes was badly miscast - whoever thought she'd make a tough, gritty assistant DA? Cilliam Murphy was badly underused and I thought the action sequences were terrible, particularly any scene of hand-to-hand combat. Nolan should've taken a few cues from Hong Kong cinema instead of filming those scenes with a jittery camera - murky and near impossible to see what the hell was going on.
The Dark Knight sounds like a major step up in the acting and story department and they got rid of Holmes, but I've read (in some of the more critical reviews) that the action choreography is still murky and needs work.
Anybody seen the film care to comment?