Letters to the Editor

Letters posted here are associated with the following Salon Premium Member:

mizbinkley

Published Letters: 870     Editor's Choice: 116

  • Let's suppose for a minute...

    [Read the article: John Yoo's war crimes]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    That we think torture isn't so bad if done for "really good reasons."

    Like if a wife murders her abusive husband. That her husband was abusive might be a mitigating factor, but she still committed murder. She should be found guilty of murder but the mitigating factors might affect how she is punished.

    We should expect at least the same standard for "torture with the best of intentions." It's still torture, it's still wrong, and it's still illegal but we might punish it differently within some proscribed range of penalties.

    Geez, when did Republicans become the party of floofy moral relativism?

  • @ emaust30

    [Read the article: John Yoo's war crimes]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    The thing that is most depressing about this article is that John Woo is on a long list of criminals who will never be prosecuted.

    John Woo's films may be formulaic, but they're hardly criminal.

  • Might as well face it: they're addicted to love.

    [Read the article: What causes crybabies?]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

  • Hoffman needs to get out of the classroom (or study better)

    [Read the article: Quote of the day ]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    Geez, this is poorly written.

    It's dense and complicated yet manages to say very little.

    It's also poorly researched. NOW isn't responsive to LGBT issues? NOW expanded its mission to cover lesbian rights back in 1971, a trailblazing move that actually caused a rift in the organization. And NOW's been working for diversity since Dr. Pauli Murray (and African-American woman) wrote NOW's statement of purpose in 1966. Today, NOW continues to push for civil rights and post-Katrina investigations and reform. What other major mainstream, "white feminist" organizations are "overlooking" diversity?

    Furthermore, policies that help white, heterosexual women also help black, homosexual women. When you raise the pay of women, you lift up black families (which are disproportionately headed by single, black women). Family and Medical Leave doesn't help you if you're an hourly worker, which is why feminists also work to increase the minimum wage and offer some leave to hourly workers, too.

    The extremes of any spectrum necessarily have different experiences. A rich, white woman will have different experiences than a poor, black woman. But in the middle are women of all colors and sexuality struggling to provide for their families, and struggling for physical, economic, health and job security.

    And Jessica Hoffman seems to deliberately overlook this to foster vast divisions where mostly small differences exist.

  • Dear Broadsheet posters,

    [Read the article: Quote of the day ]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    Most every quickly-posted comment here is more nuanced and better written than Hoffman's labored essay.

    cdevlin: I agree with your assessment of the Peeping Tom issue.

  • Why do the troops...

    [Read the article: Some in the military like pro-withdrawal candidates]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    hate the troops? Why do they hate America?

    Surrender monkeys.

  • Taking a page from Dubya's book

    [Read the article: McCain's misguided role model on deficit reduction]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    I'm becoming less and less convinced that McCain is ignorant about the economy.

    He might just be taking a page from Dubya's book--feign ignorance about matters so you can lie with impunity.

    McCain is likely fully aware of the budget clusterf--k that was Reagan but this way he gets to talk the traditional, Republican budgetary line of tax cuts and balanced budgets with the added bonus of surrounding himself in the Halo of Reagan (TM)*.

    *The Halo of Reagan (TM) is a registered trademark of Republicans everywhere wherein everything Reagan ever did was saintly, perfect and oh-so-lovely and in perfect agreement with whatever idea one's peddling now.

  • re: Bush has been giving exactly the same speech for years, and the press doesn't seem to notice.

    [Read the article: About that "significant progress"]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    No friggin' kidding.

    I just read the speech and it offers nothing new. Bush repeats the same lofty political, economic and diplomatic goals for Iraq that haven't really changed since we went into Iraq 5 years ago.

    How exactly, then, have we made significant progress?

    Although, I've gotta say, my favorite line is this: "Iraq is the convergence point for two of the greatest threats to America in this new century -- al Qaeda and Iran."

    Note that neither Al Qaeda in Iraq nor Iranian influence in Iraq even existed before we went in.

    It looks like Al Qaeda and Iran are the ones making "significant progress."

  • Insulation

    [Read the article: Who's in charge here?]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    Team Bush wasn't insulating Dubya from the facts. They were insulating him from responsibility. It's called "plausible deniability."

    Dubya knew exactly what was going on and fully sanctioned and directed it.

  • Aside to JackSparx

    [Read the article: Rep. Jackie Speier comes out swinging]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    "Finally, someone who refused to drink the Kool-Aid"

    Is that an unfortunate use of what is now a saying or was that an intentional Jim Jones reference?

  • @ fatimajones

    [Read the article: Who's in charge here?]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    "Has anyone on this site read "The End of America" by Naomi Wolf?"

    Yes, and it scared the crap out of me.

    It's a short book, but it took me longer than necessary to read it because I'd read a chapter and then put it down because I was really depressed by the detailed analysis of how far we've fallen.

  • McCain's age and corresponding health issues matter...

    [Read the article: The dreaded septuagenarian issue]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    insofar as they make his V.P. pick more important. Voters should ask themselves, "do I want his V.P. to be president?"

    However, that question doesn't rank very high on my concerns about McCain.

    His continuation of Bush's Iraq War and economic policies, his proclaimed ignorance on domestic issues and his dismal record on women's rights are much more disturbing.

  • "Perhaps the Dems can sing happy 72nd birthday to him the last day of their convention."

    [Read the article: The dreaded septuagenarian issue]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    Or present him with a birthday cake with all 72 candles and watch as it triggers the sprinkler system.

    I used to have tremendous respect for McCain (even while disagreeing with him politically) but much of that respect is gone now. In 2000, Independents and Moderate Democrats supported McCain as a man of integrity while Republicans trashed him. Now McCain panders to crazy right-wingers and trashes the same people who supported him in 2000.

    The gloves are off.

  • Wrong question?

    [Read the article: Are women less willing to speak their minds?]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    When I read, "Are women less willing to speak their minds?" I immediately thought, "Are women less willing to appear on camera?"

    It's not just fears of "not looking pretty enough." There are also legitimate fears about personal safety and how your image might be used in appropriate sexual images online.

    The women I know have a lot to say and are eager to say it. Less willing to speak their minds? Hardly.

  • Typo alert

    [Read the article: Are women less willing to speak their minds?]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    When I wrote, "how your image might be used in appropriate sexual images online," I was, of course, missing an "in".

    That should be "how your image might be used in inappropriate sexual images online."

    Look It Up, glad you shook your cyber-stalker.

Most Active Stories

Read More

Letters Help

Daily Delivery

Salon headlines in your mailbox