Letters to the Editor
ceresX11
Published Letters: 2
-
Please start editing your articles.
[Read the article: What happened to plain old vanilla?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am no particular fan of ice cream. I like it, don't love it. I have never been to any of the "mix in" stores described in this article. Two elements of the article itself felt so egregiously bad as to motivate me to write to you in hopes that an editor will start earning their paycheck.
1. Much of the non-political writing on Salon of late is hypocritical and condescending. On the one hand, this author purports to love ice cream to the point of considering it a "fifth food group." On the other, he proceeds to condescend to the consumers of almost every brand of ice cream he bothers to mention (eighth paragraph).
Look, either the author is the guy who cares enough about ice cream to taste test mix-ins for a year and publish an article about it, or he is the guy who condescends to anyone who bothers to eat the stuff. Don't try and be both. The voice of this article comes across as if ice cream murdered your whole family and this is the letter you have prepared to read at the sentencing.
2. Speaking of voice, and this is really written to the editor, the quality of the writing here is atrocious. The author compares Dairy Queen to Häagen-Dazs to frozen yogurt, then writes "despite variations in flavor and presentation, these chains essentially sold the same product."
Really? Those are essentially the same product? He goes on to define that product as "pre-made ice cream, scooped from cardboard tubs or drawn from a nozzle." The author goes on to lambaste the mix-ins for being terrible tasting, but can't distinguish Ben and Jerry's from soft serve because both are served from cardboard?
Finally, what would a Salon culture article be without a tangential bash at Paris Hilton. We need not go without here, for we learn that Cold Stone Creamery is like Paris because both are "nauseatingly sweet." Paris Hilton? Sweet?
Who is editing this stuff?
-ceresX11
-
Just a nit: misuse of the word "overwhelm"
[Read the article: A fair question]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In this post you wrote: "The House overwhelmingly approved a new version of the vetoed SCHIP legislation Thursday afternoon, but there are still aren't enough votes to overturn a veto if President Bush nixes the bill again."
In this context, use of the word "overhwhelmingly" could only be fairly applied to a vote that would be large enough to override a veto. To overwhelm is to overcome, to surge over. It simply was approved, and by less than 2/3 of the house, unfortunately.
Like I said, just an editing nit. I love the war room!