Letters to the Editor
Dana Runs
Published Letters: 161 Editor's Choice: 15
-
Salon is reduced to pot-stirrer status
[Read the article: How Oprah ruined the marathon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This debate is almost as old as marathoning. And this article adds nothing to it. It is just intended to stir the pot.
You can find better arguments for and against "middle-aged recreational joggers" running marathons any day of the week in the "Clubhouse" forum at the Cool Running website.
http://www.coolrunning.com/cgi-bin/ubb/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&forum=Clubhouse&number=1
They even have some people there who are as big an ass as McClellan is, but their arguments are better and better written.
So what's the logical conclusion to this line of thinking, that only those who can win a marathon on any given day should be running it? Otherwise there is always a level of runner that can make McClellan's complaint about slower runners ruining the sport.
McClellan, you're a pot-stirring idiot with nothing new to say. A slow idiot, at that. And a pussy. When you run your marathon, make sure to stay out of my way, okay? And when you finally reach the finish line, maybe you can tell me how my 65-year old friend who has run 70 marathons in the last 15 years is ruining the sport, or my 74-year old friend who just qualified for his first Ironman (Swim 2.4 miles, Bike 112 miles, Run 26.2 miles) is ruining that sport.
Sheesh... I expect better than this from Salon.
-
All the anger from men
[Read the article: Clinton and the men, again]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]All the angry posters before this are men. Go figure.
When it comes to sexism, men are like goldfish, unable to see the water that surrounds them completely. The man who referred to Senator Clinton as "three names" is engaging in exactly the same sexism he finds so implausible. Bashing a woman for retaining her maiden name is sexist. Period. This guy couldn't even see that. Most men, even many feminist men, are blind when it comes to sexism against women, and against Sen. Clinton in particular.
I don't think the debate attacks were sexist. They were front runnerist. But make no mistake, there is sexism surrounding the entirety of Clinton's run for the presidency. The fact that you men can't see it doesn't mean that it is absent. And it is amusing and a little bemusing to watch men sit silently by while the negative elements of sexism come at Hillary from all quarters, only then to leap to their feet in faux outrage when someone tries to use it for her advantage. Give us a break, guys. You can do that when you can recognize sexist actions 7 out of 10 times, okay?
That said, let the games begin. Clinton has had her nose twisted on the playground before, and I have no doubt she can take their best and give it back to them twofold. She doesn't need the advantage of crying foul for real or imagined sexism.
But I see nothing wrong with a woman using what she's got to her advantage any way that she can. I'm meeting with an important potential new (male) client today, and I just happened to put on a dress that shows some cleavage. If our gender works against us generally in business (or politics), pardon us if we make it work for us whenever we can.
-
"Clinton has always supported Cheney's plots."
[Read the article: Clinton and the men, again]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Seriously, dude, there's no reason to read past that remark. After reading that, anything you have to say is rendered automatically meaningless. You might as well just scream "Building 7!" and "Don't tase me, bro!" and not waste extra bandwidth.