Letters to the Editor
jebldmm
Published Letters: 933 Editor's Choice: 164
-
This is about the role of the web in terms of fair use
[Read the article: J.K. Rowling's Crucio curse on fan's Harry Potter book]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If this book were an academic treatise about Harry Potter, published by a reputable small publishing house for use in a college class studying Rowlings work, I doubt that there would be any debate about whether or not it was fair use. It certainly has "added value", even if it quotes her work. But it isn't. This is a book in the real world based on information created in the internet world. I really can't understand what the difference is between putting materail on-line and publishing similar material using paper, but a lot of people seem to recognize a difference.
As for the "but she was going to give the proceeds to charity"... it's nonsense. Rowling is one of the wealthiest women in the world. If she wants to give money to charity, she can do so out of pocket. This is simply about control. For some reason, she doesn't mind giving others control of her work when it reaches a limited on-line audience, but she does when it reaches a land based audience. This case is more important than it seems. Whether she wins or loses, this is going to effect how tolerant authors are of fan-sites and how people look at the web v. the "real world".
-
This is why Thompson is dangerous
[Read the article: Fred Thompson on abortion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]He is a lot like Bush. He has absolutely no scruples, no personal ideology that trumps his political goals. He will say whatever it takes to get elected, and will say it with deep sincerity - heck, he may even convince himself that he believes what he is saying. He is a classic authoritarian leader, and the right will fall for his style the same way that they fell for Reagan and Bush II.
-
You have a choice to make
[Read the article: I can't stand losing my beauty as I age!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I know how I'm dealing with ageing (I'm 43, too), but my way may not be the right way for you. Personally, I'm looking forward to having long grey hair and laugh lines. I think it will suit me.You can face down your fear and move into the future with whatever body/face nature gives you, or you can delay the inevitable using modern medicine. You can't delay it much, though. You are going to get older, and your skin will wrinkle and your hair will grey. You can botox and dye and even lift, but at some point you'll look like one of those women whose faces don't move when they smile. I was watching a show with Cher on it the other day. She can't smile. Her lips can, but the rest of her face just looks permanently surprised. She is beautiful in a photograph, but when you see her moving it's a bit spooky - like looking at a plastic doll face.
But there is good news. There are more kinds of beauty than you see right now. Look closer at some of the faces around you. There are beautiful people with laugh lines and greying hair and bulges in places 20 year olds don't bulge. Beauty is about more than looks. You have an opportunity to expand your horizons and find the beauty that comes only when you stop worrying about botox... or you can choose to simply fight every wrinkle.
-
Any of the top runners would be good presidents
[Read the article: George Will's preemptive strike]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well, the Democrats would be. Giuliani would be a disaster and Thompson would be another Bush. I don't want Clinton to be our candiate for anther reason - Congress. A lot of conservatives are so fed up that they will stay home next election. In their minds, it won't matter because their candidate is probably going to lose anyway - the perception is that a Democrat will win. But... right-wingers will rise up out of their graves to vote against Clinton, even if she appears to be winning by a landslide, and they will vote for downticket Republicans while they are at the poles. We could actually win real control of the House and Senate, but not if Clinton is our candidate. Obama would have some of the same effect, but probably not as much (racism isn't as powerful a force as anti-Clintonism). Edwards would be safe - he doesn't seem to inspire hatred.
-
Separation of Powers is the new game in town
[Read the article: Self-satire scales new heights]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When the right wing had little power in the federal government, they heartily endorsed states rights. When they took over federal control, they tried to pass constitutional amendments and federal laws usurping states rights. When Clinton was in office, they pushed for limits on Presidential power. Since they have taken control of Congress, they now want unlimited Presidential power. The core thing to understand about right wing thinking is that they don't care about consistancy or hypocrisy. They are like young children who feel that the end justifies the means, and the only end worth justifying is one in which they control everything.
-
@ Anonymoust, Re: Laci Peterson
[Read the article: Colorado: Human rights for eggs]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Laci Peterson's foetus was fully formed. Foetuses that late in the pregnancy are already assumed to have some rights. It would be extremely difficult for a woman to have an abortion at the stage of pregnancy, unless the foetus was non-viable or the woman would die without an abortion. There is a huge difference between the death of a fully formed foetus and the death of a zygote, and contrary to what many on the right believe, the law already recognized that difference.
-
I'm not laughing with them...
[Read the article: Laughing along with Fox Business News]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...I'm laughing at them.