Letters to the Editor
Tom 70
Published Letters: 140 Editor's Choice: 17
-
@mattcable
[Read the article: Toronto Film Festival]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Who said the "whole of Moore's work" is "beyond reproach"? Nobody. You seem to believe that Moore has to be either beyond reproach or equivalent to Limbaugh and Hannity. For god's sake, if you think Moore's distortions put him in league with Limbaugh and Hannity, you haven't been paying any attention at all.
The objection to this review isn't that Zacherek doesn't like Moore; it's that, as usual, she reviewed the filmmaker instead of the film.
-
no comparison
[Read the article: Toronto Film Festival]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]mattcable, I appreciate and agree with your effort to keep the left honest, and I agree that too much of Moore's work is manipulative and dishonest, but I know enough about the criticism of him to know that I could agree with every bit of it and that still wouldn't make him comparable to Limbaugh and his ilk. God bless you for keeping the standards high, but don't lose your sense of perspective.
-
I've come around
[Read the article: One-sided rules of political debate]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]At first I thought that MoveOn had ruined a well-argued, factual and sober-minded statement with a headline that was unforgiveably stupid. I couldn't (and still can't) believe they thought that a juvenile pun on the man's name was actually clever. But I'm beginning to think that it was strategically effective, especially considering the arguments made by previous posters about the power of memes and the free publicity that the backlash has provided. Let's hope the name sticks, and that MoveOn actually knew what they were doing.
-
Try a little moderation
[Read the article: Should tots watch TV?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]TV, in itself, may not provide any benefits, but so what? The other lesson to be learned here is that there's almost no evidence that it does any harm, and there are countless everyday things we all do with our kids that have no educational agenda. Sometimes watching TV can be simple fun. My 2-yr.-old loves to watch Dora and Barney, and my watching it with her is a good opportunity for us to just have fun together.
Eliminating TV altogether is a fine choice, but there's no reason to think it's a better choice than responsibly treating the TV just like any other plaything.
-
If anyone's still reading ...
[Read the article: Should tots watch TV?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A few counterarguments:
Yes, all TV serves the purposes of advertisers and is a marketing opportunity, but what isn't? If I wanted to deny all those corporations access to my child, I'd have to remove all the toys from our house, and all the packaged food products while I'm at it. And all the store-bought clothing, for that matter. And I don't know what the hell I'd do when we left the house.
Yes, there are things that are better for my child than watching TV, but these things can't be done constantly. How much time do you think you can spend reading books with a kid? One of the things I've learned as a parent is that there's ALWAYS something better you can do with them. You read a book, but there's surely a more valuable book than the one you're reading. You play with them, but there's always a more constructive and eductional way to play. You simply can't do the the best possible thing for your child all the time; it's impossible. I think of all the time kids spend riding around in a damn car, or simply waiting for parents to make their food or get their stuff ready to go--there are definitely better things the kids could be doing at these times, but that's okay.
This evening, my 2-year-old and I spent time cooking and eating together, playing with her dollhouse, learning letters and numbers, reading books, and watching a Sesame Street video together--and, by the way, don't even try to tell me that Sesame Street can't be eductional. Maybe that half-hour in front of the TV could have been spent doing something better, but so what? She's no worse off.
-
How about a little consistency?
[Read the article: Bill Maher: "Don't show me your tits!" ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I can agree with those of you who say that there's nothing wrong with public breastfeeding because, even though it's not strictly necessary, it's healthy and natural and those who are bothered by it can just look away. But I'd like to know what your argument you have left to use against other forms of public nudity. If someone wants to eat their supper at Applebee's naked, or maybe just expose her breasts or his penis while eating, that would be a perfectly natural, harmless thing to do, and if you don't want to see it, you can just look away. And we could also accuse those who would object to this kind of exposure of having some weird psychological hangups about the human body, much like the accusations I'm reading here. You've made the argument that people merely taking offense to your behavior is not a good reason for banning that behavior, but it you're going to be consistent it seems to me that you'd better be on the side of the nudists, as well. And frankly, I don't want to see them.
-
@flyover52
[Read the article: Bill Maher: "Don't show me your tits!" ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So sanitation is the only reason you can come up with for objecting to public nudity? That's telling, and it mostly sidesteps my point. Of course restaurants can justify their "no shirt, no shoes, no service" rules, but that doesn't prevent a woman from, say, exposing her breasts just for the hell of it. Or a man from unzipping his fly and letting it all hang out. My point, in case you didn't catch it, is that the principles that underly the arguments here are being applied somewhat arbitrarily, and we should be aware of that. I have no problem with women breastfeeding in public, but I'm also aware that, that being the case, I have no grounds for objecting to a woman being topless in public other than that I'm more comfortable with one than with the other. And that's pretty weak.