Letters to the Editor

• A couple more things

  [Read the article: "The Sopranos" goes dark]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  And then hopefully I can stop :)

  There were lots of people who still wanted to kill Tony. Hundreds, maybe even thousands. Coco, obviously. 4 other New York families who might have thought Tony was going to try to take over, or flip when he got indicted. Maybe even Phil, who was very unsatisfied with the job his people were doing on the Soprano extermination front, brought in his own guy from out of town before he died. Tony ended and destroyed a lot of lives. Thinking he was safe because Phil was dead is falling into the same trap Tony did, forgetting that what made the situation with Phil different was that he knew what direction the bullet was coming from, and that normal meant never knowing. Thinking that Members Only would have to be related to Phil to have a motive overlooks the fact that Tony's world is filled with people who kill for money.

  AJ was right about learning Arabic. All Muslims are required to try to learn it, so it would be the closest thing to a lingua franca for the people he was trying to communicate with.

  I like the Schroedinger's Cat idea, that theory has always been a favorite of mine and seeing it applied in this context is a treat. I just don't think the ending is ambiguous, so I think the cat is just a cat.

  Permalink Tuesday, June 12, 2007 03:01 AM

• Absolutely Yes

  [Read the article: Mike Bloomberg could buy the White House]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  Salon's political coverage is becoming distressingly mainstream.

  Americans want change. We have wanted it for a long time. And articles like this one seem hell bent on telling us we can't have it, that choosing an alternative to the 2 major parties is a recipe for disaster.

  What the writer fails to point out about the Perot candidacy is that he took 19% of the vote from a Republican who's approval ratings were stellar compared to the current President and who not only won his war with Iraq but won big and brought nearly all the boys home quickly and unharmed (or so we thought at the time), and the most attractive Democrat since Kennedy. And all this after he dropped out of the race. Imagine if he had stayed in. Imagine if he hadn't been vilified in the press for everything from the size of his ears to the public speaking abilities of his VP. Imagine.

  Bloomberg would be running against the representative of a party that has pretty much been destroyed by its perceived leader and probably a woman and a black man. There may never be a better time for a strong independent to throw his hat into the ring than this election. The Republicans will have Bush undermining them on the news every night, and the Democrats will be fielding a ticket that can only win if it runs unopposed. A divorced Jewish billionaire might look pretty good by comparison.

  As for his commercials, rather than show pornographic cartoons (which reminds me of what Larry Flynt threatened to do in '92 because political advertisements can't be censored at all) he could simply show the top 100 contributors to the DNC, RNC, and his opponents campaigns and how much they gave. He could move the debate to real issues, which is something that he seems inclined to do, and force the Dems and Reps to trip over themselves with their corporation required non-answers.

  To be fair, he is viewed as less divisive than Guiliani but much of what he has done in New York wouldn't have been possible without Rudy. It was tough at first, but it did lay the groundwork for NYC's return to the position of America's Greatest City, which Bloomberg carried off.

  So stop telling us who not to vote for. Stop telling us that we can't change things. That's not what we need, and it isn't true. Stop going to people who's living depends on the status quo for quotes about how this guy can never win. If you want to engage in a speculative exercise, try comparing Bloomberg's expected stance on major issues to Clinton, Edwards, McCain, and Guiliani. Give us real information and let us form our own opinions. If you can't do that, we may as well go to www.latimes.com and watch Katie Couric for political coverage.

  All you are showing us is that you are no better at recognizing the responsibilities that come with a free press than any other large media organization. You degrade us with your condecension, and you degrade yourselves with your lack of integrity.

  Permalink Tuesday, June 12, 2007 04:07 AM