Letters to the Editor
uncle ovipositor
Published Letters: 75 Editor's Choice: 5
-
Why did Salon publish this cheap smear?
[Read the article: Sympathy for the devil: Leave Rev. Al alone!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've subscribed to premium since it was first offered, and while I'm not going to threaten to cancel my subscription, I honestly thought about whether this is what I'm paying for - as have others, apparently.
Others have pointed out that this article consists of baseless accusations and myopic opinions, and there's no need for me to repeat same here. I'm trying to find a justification for this being published here, and so far I'm coming up with none.
This, as with all of her pieces to date, verges on word salad. This piece is based on a very weird, paranoid assumption that Obama is behind an article in the NYP that says Sharpton doesn't like Obama.
Any evidence from Debra Dickerson? No? So how is this anything other than a smear piece? Anyone? I'm all ears - show me any merit in this.
I like reading pieces from a perspective that's not my own, but it has to be cogent to be worth the effort. It's why I don't follow the myriad of 9/11 conspiracy theories. I see a similar lack of merit in her "blackness vs the world" viewpoint.
Perhaps she expresses the view of an important group, of which I am unaware. Perhaps. She writes about a sort of inherited, historical "blackness" which I don't know anything about, and there's likely some insight in that. But I'm quite sure there are people who can write about this from this perspective better than she can. Hell, I'd rather you give Sharpton a column - I disagree with him about a lot of things, but he has indeed matured as a thinker.
If any one of the editors can explain to me how this isn't a cheap, baseless smear, I'm all ears. Otherwise, please stop wasting valuable electrons on this tripe.
-
I'm with everyone else posting here
[Read the article: Coloring in Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Referencing that baseless Dickerson smear piece as evidence of some sort of conflict between Obama and Sharpton is absurd. Letting it stay on line is embarassing.
Others have highlighted the details about why, but I've yet to see you or any of the editors here offer an explaination about why this article has any merit.
-
King in fine form
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've never liked basketball OR college, but enjoy your writing on both in this article. Seems like a few days off did you well, King - glad you're back.
-
I don't know
[Read the article: A hit job on Keith Olbermann]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think that comparing Olbermann to O'Reilly is going too far, but I think the article on the whole was trying to make a different point than the one you're getting. The majority of the article is about the balance of punditry and journalism in this day and age, and He's using Olbermann as a catalyst for that discussion. The fact that Olbermann did rip into Rudy a week before should raise questions about his ability to be objective and how much import we want to place on an unachievable ideal such as "objectivity". It's an interesting and important discussion.
Bauder tried to step into this discussion, but he did it in a ham-fisted way. I think it's far too large of an issue to be covered in a short wire article, and he does a great disservice to it by passingly acknowledging Fox and not discussing the history. Still, I like seeing this subject getting a bit of air time.
Perhaps comparing Olbermann to O'Reilly was based on the context of both being identified with partisan opinions, and O'Reilly's the best known parallel. Still, it's a little like comparing anybody to Hitler - it pushes the discussion to a ridiculous extreme.
-
the end is nigh
[Read the article: "Sopranos" wrap-up: "Is this all there is?"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm ready for this show to end. After the last couple of seasons, I'm less interested in the characters. Their actions seem to have a lot fewer consequences, which is disappointing. But I'm liking this last 10-episode set, and thinking it's going to end on a level equal to the first 4 seasons.
Some things I've noticed so far that I think are interesting:
1.) The TV. All of the shows that have been on the TV have been from the past, and most of them from Tony's lifetime (3's Company, $20,000 Pyramid, lots of eighties infomercials, I believe there was an episode of Hill St. Blues on yesterday when AJ was watching TV at night). They're out of place on air, but add a nice tone of looking backwards. Here's hoping there's a Rockford Files episdoe on TV soon. Tony used to watch the history channel and black and white moves almost exclusively, but now we're into color and bad video.
2.) The recreations of previous murder scenes. Heather noted the Paulie/Pussy parallel, but there's also the drive off of the freeway Tony takes Bobby on before meeting the Canadians, which may as well have been the same road Sil drove Adrianna down.
Predictions?
Tony will die from eating spicy peppers or eggplant or any of the foods he's no longer allowed (as he mentions every episode at this point). I'm hoping it's a few episodes before the end, because the aftermath will be interesting.
The 2 "Arabs... or maybe Arabians" will turn out to be FBI agents, and part of a trap they'd tried to set for Tony. They'll come back into the Bing next episode with a line on some goods that they'll offer Tony. The FBI agent will have finally outsmarted Tony - but he'll be dead by the time they have a solid case against him.
Bobby's the next boss. Technically, anyway - Janice really will be in charge.