Letters to the Editor
omooex
Published Letters: 977 Editor's Choice: 5
-
Paul Daniel Ash
[Read the article: Shocking new revelation: Unchecked government powers get abused]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I was making a point. DCLAW contends (in a previous post, if you read it, then you may understand) that us snivelling "victims" shouldn't complain about rude treatment. And here are all of his "snivelers" defending him. I hope (but don't expect) that people will understand what I was trying to do. To show that words really do hurt people, some people will not be offended when someone is called slimy. For others, the trip word is fat. Whatever. At least people are talking about it. As for forfeiting the right to call anyone rude, it looks like people were already telling me that anyway.
-
Let's put this to rest
[Read the article: Shocking new revelation: Unchecked government powers get abused]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I felt--and still feel--that when you accuse someone of doing something slimy, you are accusing them of being slimy. Suggestng there is a difference is intellectually dishonest. However, I want to put all of this to rest now. I am sorry for what I said to DCLAW--I obviously meant none of it, and that was the whole point. To be honest, reading that I was being a "sniveling" victim, as DCLAW characterized the people complaining about Glenn's treatment was sort of the last straw. It WAS an insult, and it pissed me off. Friends ALL nOW, huh? None of us know each other anyway, as DC pointed out. And there's another post, so I would like to announce this as the end of the line.
-
Ash, that's the one
[Read the article: Why do conservatives really find the Obama campaign "scary"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"I can literally remember what he was wearing: an Air National Guard flight jacket, cowboy boots, complete with the - in Texas you see it a lot - one of the back pockets will have a circle worn in the pocket from where you carry your tin of snuff, your tin of tobacco. He was exuding more charisma than any one individual should be allowed to have,"
I think what's most interesting about that quote is what a naked attempt at convincing us that a cult of personality around Bush exists--where none could possibly exist. Bush is literally the LEAST charismatic individual I have ever seen on television. Somewhere between Ted Koppell and Jerry Lewis.
Certainly, popular media portrayed him in various non-charismatic incarnations--monkey-headed, Afred E. Neumanned, doddering dunce, etc--before he got control of the spin machine. In a sense, I think that maybe where the fear of Obama lays--even perhaps more so than Hillary, or another Dem candidate. Whatever is driving the cult of personality around Obama, it can't be denied that he REALLY does exude a charisma that crosses party lines, as other people noted here. I think Dan Savage said it most eloquently when he asked men on Politically Incorrect if they were a little "Gay" for Obama. Probably the first candidate of any party to be able to actually excite people without the need for media tricks since Clinton.
-
Eurydice, Ash
[Read the article: Why do conservatives really find the Obama campaign "scary"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Eurydice,
I think its funny about the 'Yes, We Can' slogan. That chestnut is so overused in the Latino community that I once saw it in a Spanish language commercial for a car dealership.
Ash,
If I can be permited one last op-ed on the whole 'words' firestorm that got started in the last post. I find it fascinating that out of all the muted and overt insults that get traded around here concerning intelligence, that the insults that really got people's goats were based on appearance "ugly, fat" etc. The only thing that can be perceived on this forum IS intelligence. No one knows how fat or ugly we really are. Just a thought.
-
Another Thing Eurydice
[Read the article: Why do conservatives really find the Obama campaign "scary"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I liked your deconstruction of Obama from sum to parts. Yes, part of his secret is mostly something borrowed from various succesful movements and fondly-remembered voices. He has done a really great job of creating a candied shell around him of slogans and movement-iconography, without actually standing for anything even coming close to what people lived and died for in the UFW, Freedom Riders etc. Or I suppose, one could simply argue that he his mere existance represents all of those attributes, since he would be the first man with non-white skin who has ever made it this close to being president.
-
Just wanted to add that some of us gave up on privacy years ago...
[Read the article: The banality of the surveillance state]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As a Palestinian with a progressive ideology who's travelled a bit, I gave up on privacy shortly after the ten minus one / ten plus one episode. I wrote all of my emails in that kind of code, spoke only of certain things on the phone and in euphemisms. And then at a certain point I just said the hell with it; they're going to do what they're going to do. Either I'm incredibly paranoid, or THEY know everything about me. Or both. But I will admit to not having flown for the past three years, just in case.
-
The "molestation" argument
[Read the article: The banality of the surveillance state]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I find the molestation argument more and more offensive with each passing year. As if the worst thing that can happen to a child is to be 'touched' by an adult--not murder, not poverty or emotional abuse, not the snuffing out of opportunities because of unjust, not some drunk driver running them over, not being brainwashed and conned into signing up for military service and getting themselves, killed or becoming murderers or going crazy.
We use our children to justify the unjustifiable--our hatred of people who are different than us, our military invasions, our denial of people's rights. What a burden to place on them.
-
McHebert
[Read the article: The banality of the surveillance state]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree with you about writing. Writing in the last two centuries has done as much or more to shift power and topple regimes than any violent or non-violent movements and at the least, the written word has been the seed of all of these.
But just to nitpick. I would be wary of the 'change' that we bring about and how easily co-opted it is. Gore's environmental activism is a perfect example. Yes, he did mainstream environmental concern, but look at where all that's going to end up. Ethanol, the next generation's polluter and political destabilizer.