Letters to the Editor
Asher Steinberg
Published Letters: 224 Editor's Choice: 12
-
I Agree, Partly
[Read the article: Too great to be good]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I thought his performance was compelling at times, but I agree that it was a little over the top and overwrought. I think, though, that the failings you see are more the failings of the screenplay than failings of his performance. It's not Day-Lewis's fault that they ask him to implausibly turn into Charles Foster Kane in the fifth act, that there's absolutely no explanation for how he became so misanthropic, or that they gave him that ludicrous milkshake speech. A ridiculous speech like that demands a ridiculous delivery, and I think he did the best with it that he or practically anyone could. As for the film itself, it's horribly overrated (though it has some merit) but I'm afraid you'll remain a voice in the wilderness on this one for a while. I'm sure in a couple years people will come to their senses, just as they did on Million Dollar Baby and Crash.
-
Not Necessarily So Daunting
[Read the article: A bleak outlook for Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]After all, Hillary's leading in every poll in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania - the only really large states left. If this fraud wins, it'll be tragic, but at this point I think it's become axiomatic that Americans vote for whoever the more likable candidate is. Look at Bush vs. Gore, Bush vs. Kerry, Bush vs. McCain, Bill vs. anyone - you can be unqualified, devoid of character, dumb, weak on issues, and as long as you're more likable than your opponent you'll still win. It's for this very reason that Madison created the Electoral College. He didn't trust the people to make an informed choice in presidential elections. And rightly so. For instance, where did everyone get the idea that Obama was the "change" candidate in this election? Him repeating the word a thousand times? Name ten concrete changes that Obama's for. "Taking Washington back from the lobbyists," "bridging the divides," and making sure our kids learn "art and music and literature" don't count. After you get to three you'll be down to noncontroversial schlock like investing in solar and wind and biodiesel.
-
Gezelligtexas, you're right; she's not the experience candidate
[Read the article: A bleak outlook for Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]He is. He's held elective office longer. Hillary just invented this 30 years of experience nonsense, and Obama conceded the point wisely to make her look like the "status quo" Washington establishment candidate. Of course, Hillary had some political experience as the First Lady, but nothing to be proud of; she botched healthcare. So basically, we have an electorate that's so stupid it can't figure out which of the two candidates is more experienced or which stands for more substantive change.
-
How Touching
[Read the article: A week of petty though typical attacks on Obama produced nothing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dirty attacks are just an inescapable feature of American politics and have been since the 1780s. People used Sally Hemmings against Jefferson in his day. Rumors of James Buchanan's homosexuality were used against him. Don't try to make me feel sorry for Obama because a few idiots have made some stupid claims about him, and don't try to claim that this is unique to the GOP.
-
...
[Read the article: When life gives you an NYT investigation, make lemonade]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I know it's against the law to take up for a Republican on this site, but that was a really ridiculous article. There was so little evidence for whatever they were supposedly reporting on that they had to spend 80% of it drudging up the Keating Five business.
-
Hillary Didn't Plagiarize
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's Texas-size moment ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Besides that she only borrowed a few words, debates and prepared speeches are very different things. I don't really think you can plagiarize in a debate. She repeated something that she had heard before in informal remarks, perhaps not even remembering where she'd heard it. People inadvertently repeat other people's phrases all the time. A speech is very different; you can't offer the excuse that you were saying whatever came to your head, because it's all prepared and written down. Obama clearly intended to take Patrick's words, while we have no way of knowing whether Clinton intended to take Edwards's. Also, Edwards's words were less obscure than Patrick's. You can't plagiarize something if it's so widely known that no one's likely to think you made it up yourself. No one knew when Obama trotted out the line about people voting for their own aspirations that he'd actually expropriated it from Patrick. In fact, reporters wrote about what a great line it was for weeks until it came out that it wasn't his. People instantly knew, on the other hand, that Clinton's words were taken from Edwards because everybody saw those debates just a month ago. It's like if she said "where's the beef" - nobody could call that plagiarism, because we all would know where it came from. If you take words from some obscure Massachusetts politician on the other hand, you ought to cite them.
-
"Who Doubts That Obama Will Move Aggressively And Creatively To Address Issues... Of Black Violence?"
[Read the article: It's OK to vote for Obama because he's black]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Me! I highly doubt he'll move aggressively or creatively to address anything. He'll just make a speech about it and hope the problem goes away.
-
The Harold Ford Ad Wasn't Racist
[Read the article: Republicans worried about charges of racism and sexism?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What's racist about it? You could've made the same exact ad if Ford were white and attended a Playboy party, and I'm sure the Republicans would have. Something can't become racist just because it attacks a black person. For something to be racist, it has to trade on specifically racial stereotypes, and I also think it has to be dishonest. For instance, mentioning that Obama, by his own admission, did cocaine in his teenage years isn't racist, though some people would say it is. How can it be racist when it would be perfectly alright to say the same thing about our current President? It can't be the case that you're allowed to mention facts about a white person's past that you can't mention about a black person's, just because those facts may instantiate certain stereotypes.