Letters to the Editor
mattwa33186
Published Letters: 432 Editor's Choice: 45
-
Another example
[Read the article: Mike Bloomberg could buy the White House]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think it was in the late 80's or early 90's that Nader got himself a lot of headlines by basically calling the heads of every car company in the world murderers since they were capable of building a car that would allow the passengers to walk away from a 100MPH collision with a bridge embutment but refused to do so, claiming all kinds of scientific and medical research that supported his point. This, in spite of general agreement among doctors that the force of your brain impacting your skull at anything over 50MPH would cause instantaneous death, agreement and among phycisists that any attempt to reduce the velocity of the car by more than half in the allotted time would result in more damage to the passengers, not less.
You argue that I am equating the 3 based on what they say and the pulpit they say it from, which is wrong. I am equating them based on the fact that all 3 use their purported philosophies and stated motivations as tools to achieve what they really want - power.
Nader uses an entirely false persona of a man trying to protect us from corporate interests to draw attention and power to himself.
Gore uses an entirely false persona of an environmentalist and technocrat to draw attention and power to himself.
Bush uses an entirely false persona of a righteous, moral, protector of the masses to draw power and attention to himself.
None of the 3 is what he presents himself to be.
-
And -
[Read the article: Mike Bloomberg could buy the White House]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]All of them prey on fear.
-
My suggestion
[Read the article: Her sexy T-shirt says "Kitty Not Happy" -- is that OK at work?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Stop looking at her tits.
I once worked with a woman who wore a t-shirt that said "Salmon: The Other Pink Meat".
Fortunately, the company was too cheap to provide sticks for people to put up their asses and didn't pay well enough for the employees to buy their own.
-
tiberius
[Read the article: The al-Marri decision]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The monitoring of the American people by their government has never reached this depth or scale before, partly because it wasn't possible and partly because the sheer audacity and disregard it takes wasn't present at the highest levels.
You say you aren't worried about the Constitution because it has been tested before and will be tested again. I say this is no test, it's an outright attack, the enemies are within the gates, and what they can't take with a frontal assault they will take through treachery (presidential signings, war powers, secrecy and lies).
There is no good reason to subvert the Constitution, and there never will be. With it, we are an example for all even with all our faults. Without it, we may as well be Hussein's Iraq.
Aside from which, this administration has never even tried, not once, to effectively increase our safety without subverting our liberties. This points to only one possible goal. Defending people who obviously have the exact same agenda as terrorists by using terrorists as the excuse is insane.
-
@Amerigo
[Read the article: Her sexy T-shirt says "Kitty Not Happy" -- is that OK at work?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So, because the LW (and no one else) took the shirt to be a shot at the husband's sexual prowess, so the husband might take it to be a shot at his sexual prowess (instead of something like maybe his absence from their marital bed), and the husband might be violent (in which case the LW is obviously not offended by bruises and black eyes on such a fine example of female pulchritude), and he might bring his violence to the workplace instead of waiting for Kitty to get home (because the husband might be a retard), this shirt is actually dangerous to her co-workers?
Do you work for the Bush administration?
-
@volswagn
[Read the article: Her sexy T-shirt says "Kitty Not Happy" -- is that OK at work?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I hear you, and I sympathize. I work in tech, too, and the changes have been staggering.
In the 90's I worked for a Large Teutonic Corporation. When they attempeted to implement a dress code, they were about 80% successful. The engineers took to wearing their most ripped up jeans, their most profane t-shirts, their smelliest sneakers almost immediately. An obvious "screw you, fire me and I'll just go make more money down the street".
Now, the suits are having their vengeance.
Last company I worked for was a Large Software Company. They had no dress code, still don't, but...
When I started, people wore what they wanted and somehow managed to avoid offending anybody. We kept musical instruments in our offices and played together after work. We turned our workspaces into homes away from home, got an enormous amount of high-quality work done, and made the company (and ourselves) a shitload of money.
After 5 years the talentless hacks had taken over. Relentless negative comments had done more than any dress code ever could have. No more wearing what's comfortable. No more decorating. No more music. And, no more money, because no more long hours and creative comaradarie. The talentless hacks, in their efforts to bring their betters down to their own gray, unimaginiative level had killed the goose that laid the golden egg. They had to resort to swinling their investors to get the money they felt they deserved, and now many of them may be on their way to prison.
Poetic justice? Maybe. But it's hard to find the good in the destruction of something good, which is what these tightasses seem hell bent on accomplishing.
-
After reading the article
[Read the article: Start believin']
[Read more letters about this article: Here]with the quotes from Steve Perry, especially the one about the streetlight, I now know what's wrong with this song:
Steve wrote Don't Stop Believin when he was a 14 year old girl in a junior high school studyhall.