Letters to the Editor
sansho1
Published Letters: 205 Editor's Choice: 33
-
Zelasko-Kennedy
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think King is correct about the FOX network not caring about baseball, and that the installation of Zelasko and Kennedy is reflective of this. But I believe this goes deeper than mere antipathy towards the sport. Zelasko and Kennedy, both obvious mediocrities, are kept in their high-profile jobs as self-justification for the FOX obsession with profit maximization over quality product.
To watch the pregame show is to know that these two bland, uninteresting people cannot possibly demand a top salary -- they don't deserve to be paid as much as Costas or Michaels. Maybe Trautwig. So they'll work cheaper, and so they get to stay. This phenomenon extends to the FOX regional sports desks as well -- a more conspicuously mediocre roster of "talent" one could not hope to find.
-
NBA Attendance
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]King, thanks for mentioning my Atlanta Hawks for what I can only assume will be the last time this season. The only explanation for the Hawks' #6 attendance rank must be that they're counting tickets sold, not actual attendance. Even the low camera angles that show only the first six rows revealed many empty seats, and this was on opening day. Combine that with a scoreboard meltdown, a preponderance of Laker fans in the seats, and another desultory loss, and the Hawks are off and running once again.
By the way, did you know that of the 29 other teams, the Hawks are the home opener for four of them? We're the Duke football of the NBA...
-
FYI
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Looks like you picked Carolina, but bolded the Bears.
-
Warriors
[Read the article: "The Warriors" fights on]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As someone who was a 13-year-old reprobate when The Warriors came out, I've been fascinated with the anticipation regarding the DVD release. There's no doubt the movie has a much higher Q-rating now than when it was first released, so much so that the DVD and video game have acheived the status of marketing "event".
Presumably, the critics circa 1979 would be aghast at this development. Of course, film criticism (and access to media in general) was restricted to the gilded set back in those days -- little wonder they didn't get it. They (Kael, as usual, aside) missed the connection that Hill's little film made with disaffected youth of modest means and limited opportunity.
See, I think the gangs were "kicking against" something, and that something was a glass ceiling so low that most of them couldn't get enough leverage to break it (not even with a baseball bat). This point was driven home in the scene where Swan and Mercy are on the subway, and two young couples fresh from their prom sit across from them. At first, the quartet is jovial and wisecracking, but as they become aware of the stares from the kids from across the track, they fall silent, then contemplative, then almost ashamed. There's no fear of violence in the scene, just a mutual acknowledgement that the difference in their status, while likely permanent, is merely an accident of birth. It's extraordinary.
-
Meta-Letter
[Read the article: I'm married with kids -- and in love with a prostitute]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You know, I really wonder about the wisdom of attaching a letters feature to Cary's column. Today's advice-seeker is a deeply flawed man to be sure, and Cary is spot on in identifying his self-absorption, but it seems the impact of his well-considered advice is lessened when appended by a Greek chorus of (accurate) name callers. Just a thought.
-
Sisterhood
[Read the article: My secret is about to be revealed]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That comment displays in a nutshell all that is wrong with attaching a letters feature to this column. Who now isn't aware that they're writing not just to Cary, but also to the dismissive and unempathetic chorus?
-
Today's column
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Love ya, King. However, and this might be the result of a post-prandial dip on my part, I have no idea what you're talking about today. Still, love ya.
-
"What is it about A&F and Mike Jeffries that really bothers you?"
[Read the article: The man behind Abercrombie & Fitch]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A&F is not, and never has been, on my radar, so I'm not bothered by them. What really bothers me about Jeffries is that he's willfully turned himself into a freak, and that his creepy visage was foisted upon me while I innocently searched for the latest in domestic politics...
-
Give me a break, I think
[Read the article: The man behind Abercrombie & Fitch]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]if jeffries were female and the letters to the editor featured the same proportion of messages with disparaging comments about the individual's looks, we'd be hearing from the broadsheet crowd about how wrong and oppressive the letter writers are, how they're victimizing women, and holding women to unreasonable standards of beauty, etc.
I'm not sure whether you're saying that we letter writers are wrong to focus on his looks, or whether you're disparaging the broadsheet crowd's anticipated reaction to said letters. Regardless, just to prove my own non-sexist agenda here, the first name that popped into my head upon seeing Mr. Jeffries was Joycelyn Wildenstein, another self-made freak. It's not about unreasonable standards of beauty, it's about narcissism run amok, a phenomenon that is not gender-specific.
Perhaps the focus on his looks to the exclusion of the content of the article is reflective of the typical Salon reader's attitude towards fashion journalism, that being, who cares?
-
Nice to see
[Read the article: The man behind Abercrombie & Fitch]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]the A&F employees finally show up to the discussion. What took you so long?
-
Nice to see
[Read the article: The man behind Abercrombie & Fitch]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]the A&F employees finally show up to the discussion. What took you so long?
-
Son
[Read the article: My family treats my dad like dirt]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Since the LW didn't reveal his gender in the letter, but probably did in the submission form, I assumed Cary's first line, quoted by zahra, was an intentional signifier to his readers. There's no reason to parse it further.
Great advice as usual, Cary. I'm ambivalent about AA, but the idea of taking the opportunity to get him out of the house is a great one. I don't understand the idea posted here about not going home again. If the LW didn't love his family despite the frustration, he wouldn't have written. The impulse to try and make the situation better speaks well of his generosity and caring -- it would be the easiest and most narcissistic solution in the world to stay away and quote the Buddha.