Letters to the Editor
mintosh
Published Letters: 70 Editor's Choice: 8
-
Uh Hm
[Read the article: Opus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes. A recycled punchline. Which only makes it better - dumba$%! But know - you have to show off your superior brain power. Wow!! I am impressed. Better get back to your jeopardy watching.
-
No Heavyliftz
[Read the article: This Modern World]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Your Right - it isn't about homosexuality.
But it also shouldn't be about illegality. In fact, I'm not conviced what Larry Craig did even should be illegal. Women put up with much worse sorts of solicitation than this in workplaces everyday - with the most legitimately legal response being a harrassment suit - and this only if the action is persistant. So - making it an issue of illegality - borders on making it an issue of homosexuality, given the potential double-standard.
No - the issue is plain and simply one of hypocrisy.
-
mcb1025
[Read the article: This Modern World]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First off - Good answer, bobbyjoe.
Second - Actually, I don't even care that the GOP is full of hypocrites (in fact, one of my favorite quotes comes from Ralph Waldo Emerson - " A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds").
What I do care about is that the GOP is full of people who are politically intolerant of gays (and that as a party, it pursues legislation which is intolerant of gays - neither of which you deny, mcb1025).
So go ahead, mcb1025. Be personally intolerant, if you wish. Or even Religiously intolerant. But all of the GOP's political intolerance reeks of bigotry and (far too often), is symptomatic of a conflation of church and state (since more often then not, the bigotry is legitmated with reference to religion).
What, then, does focusing on the hypocrisy accomplish? I would hope that it would at least serve to remind people in the GOP not to throw so many stones. And, perhaps, persuade a few gay-bigoted fence sitters that they might as well vote democrat.
-
Enough with the. . .
[Read the article: Earth to PETA]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]. . . conflation of animal rights issues with environmental issues. Right after telling us that chicken is pretty good environmentally, this author has to remind us of how these poor animals are treated. Huh - I though the subject was environmentalism? When we conflate the two we are likely to forget that the real issue is overpopulation. Don't forget, hunter/gatherer societies lived off the land with very little negative environmental impact - and guess what, they killed and ate animal flesh. Similarly, were I to kill and eat an animal living in its own natural environment in sustainable numbers (say the deer that are so plentiful in Michigan rural areas that many are starving), the action would have even less negative environmental impact than eating a vegan diet.
-
For the skeptics
[Read the article: Col. Boylan's implosion accelerates]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hi Glenn -- Long time reader - first time poster.
While I believe your evidence that the letters are either Boylan's - or that some serious hacking has been going on - is very strong, positive proof is always a tenuous thing. And it is this tenuousness which (at least in part) continues to drive the right-wing's sniveling about the affair.
However, it seems to me that right-wing skeptics of your version of the story have to contend with a simple and obvious fact. I.e., if Boylan didn't write the letters in question - this should be proven quickly and easily enough on his end. Moreover, if he could prove that he has not written them, your head would be a nice tropy to display on his wall, wouldn't it? And so why wouldn't he try to prove they were fakes - unless the weren't. Unless they weren't. Unless they weren't.
-
For the Skeptics
[Read the article: The "real" fake Col. Steven Boylan's e-mail]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]While I believe the evidence that the letters are either Boylan's - or that some serious hacking has been going on - is very strong - positive proof is always a tenuous thing. And it is this tenuousness which (at least in part) continues to drive the right-wing's sniveling about the affair.
However, it seems to me that right-wing skeptics of your version of the story have to contend with a simple and obvious fact. I.e., if Boylan didn't write the letters in question - this should be proven quickly and easily enough on his end. Moreover, if he could prove that he has not written them, Glenn Greenwald's head would be a nice tropy to display on his wall, wouldn't it? And so why wouldn't Boyland try to prove they were fakes - unless they weren't. Unless they weren't. Unless they weren't.
-
Anonymous
[Read the article: A Democratic donnybrook]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You can try and spin Obama as some kind of conservative - but that certainly doesn't square with the facts. Obama actually had the 10th highest liberal voting record of 2006 (http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htm ) -- well above Hillary.
-
Marion Jones and Clemens --
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Not to mention he has a fortune large enough to live very well and very quietly for several life times. And Marion Jones? Hardly.
-
A more important question for Google
[Read the article: Why Google only tells you what you already know]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why do I get one hit for this search string - "the poem is like a new world seen for the first time"
And zero hits for this search string -- "the poem is like a new"
If anything, it should be the reverse. And this is a big problem for someone who counts on being able to find all the sites which quote a specific piece of literature - or when hoping to bust a student for plagiarism.