Letters to the Editor
Lindy from L.A.
Published Letters: 63 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Struck Dumb in L.A.
[Read the article: A new low in Clinton bashing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Oh Joan. You really are hopeless, aren't you? There are so many well written personal responses to Sen. Clinton's comment that I can only assume, if none of them persuaded you, this probably won't either. So I'll be brief.
My take isn't that Clinton was hoping for catastrophe to befall Obama but that, by rising the specter of that possibility, she was trying to inject uncertainty into the perception by voters and superdelegates as to the outcome of the race -- and thereby encouraging superdelegates to go with her as the "safer" choice, the one that wouldn't arouse the anxieties of the electorate by seeming vulnerable to some potential, horrific tragedy. And I find that deeply manipulative and cyncial.
But really what I want to say is this: I don't even know what to say, or how to talk, to someone whose take away description of that whole episode is "A new low in Clinton bashing."
I am slack-jawed with disbelief.
-
Correction
[Read the article: A new low in Clinton bashing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Oops. Make that "raising" the specter.
-
Okay, Fine, Mr. Kamiya -- Limbaugh Was Right
[Read the article: Rush Limbaugh was right]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Actually, I'm still a f**cking riot. But I'll confess -- not about anything that feels like it might lose another Presidential election.
See, back in 2004, I was working GOTV on election day. On the outside, I was crossing my fingers. On the inside, though, I had a secret: Kerry was going to win, and we'd be rid of that boob in the W.H. and his disastrous policies. Well, you can see how that worked out.
So yeah, I'm kinda humorless when it comes to this election. I can only assume, Mr. Kamiya, that you're pretty sure Obama's going to win. Or, I suppose there are two other possibilities: one, you aren't sure if Obama's going to win, but you don't think the so-called "low information voters" who think Obama is a Muslim terrorist are going to make any difference. Or, finally, you don't think a President McCain could possibly be as bad as a President Bush, and a McCain Presidency couldn't possibly result in thousands of pointless deaths. If so, where have you been the last eight years? You may have a great sense of humor, Mr. Kamiya, but you seem to have lost your imaginative powers.
Or wait. Fourth possibility: You're young. You can imagine the Muslim-terrorist-fearing voters who might elect John McCain President, and you can imagine the pointless death and carnage that "staying in Iraq a hundred years" and invading Iran might cause. But you're young enough that you figure you can ride that out, and maybe all those deaths don't seem quite real to you anyway.
I'd sure be curious to know which it is.
-
@velomonkey
[Read the article: Rush Limbaugh was right]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Quote: "Anyone who doesn't find the new yorker funny falls into the same camp of people who didn't think Stephan Colbert was funny at the press dinner. I hate to be so black and white, but it's true."
I disagree. I think Colbert is hilarious and brilliant to boot. But, the people who don't get him tend to think he's not funny or else find him confusing. One thing they don't do is labor under the misimpression they're receiving information.
My fear is that people who don't get this cartoon are likely to be a lot of the same people who aren't quite sure who Barack Obama is and are worried he might be a Muslim terrorist. They see this cartoon on the internet and think they're receiving the information that he really is a Muslim terrorist -- after all, who would know better than the New Yorker, right?! And what do these folks do with this new "information"? They go vote for McCain to "keep the Muslim terrorist" out of the Oval Office. That's the problem. That's why at least some of us are so stirred up.
Am I being unnecessarily fearful myself? Very possibly. But I can't help but remember 2004 when I -- and many others, I suspect -- were so sure Kerry would win...
This cartoon might strike me as funny if there weren't an election pending but see, there is. And that's the bottom line for me.
-
Who Said Anything About Censorship?
[Read the article: Rush Limbaugh was right]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Quote: "To claim that a publication should censor itself for fear of feeding the right-wing smear machine is simply misguided."
I've seen very little call, if any, for self-censorship.
But it's also clear, from the statements made by the New Yorker editor and the cartoonist, that they think it's "obvious" that the cartoon is satire and that people will immediately apprehend that it's lampooning the smears being spread by the right.
I think they're wrong about that. I think plenty of people -- read: voters -- will not get that at all.
-
Some Responses
[Read the article: Rush Limbaugh was right]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Quote: "I understand that this is satire, but I fear that most of its target audience wont get the joke."
That's it in a nutshell.
Quote: "Anyone heard anything about this FISA business? Torture? Iraq? Gitmo? Anyone?"
Huh? You think you're the only one who knows about these issues? Who the f**k are you to think that? Just because we're engaged in a discussion you apparently disapprove of? Or hold opinions at odds with yours?
Man oh man, thread police are something else again.