Letters to the Editor
uncle ovipositor
Published Letters: 73 Editor's Choice: 5
-
the Ron Paul surge
[Read the article: "The message is so powerful, in spite of my shortcomings"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Nice interview. I don't think it's a bad thing to write about being on the campaign trail as part of a series that's defined as being about the campaign trail, but I'm guessing the people who are complaining are only here because they googled his name and this article came up. It's an odd tactic, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
What I find most interesting about this article is that so many of the people in NH to support Ron Paul aren't from NH (and, as Mr. Scherer amusingly points out repeatedly have paid to get there with their own money!). My hunch is that the influx of out-of-towners will be seen as an insult by many in NH, and that they'd do well to recruit as many people from in state as they can to make it seem less like an inverted bridge-and-tunnel invasion.
500 people from New York at a rally in New Hampshire isn't going to help him much. Just like 5000 people posting letters here won't. Fun to watch, but ineffectual.
-
Missionary work
[Read the article: Mitt Romney's emotional moment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One point that's worth keeping in mind is that nearly all Mormons do missionary work, usually for 2 years, usually right after high school and before college. Highlighting the fact that he has done this is a little like pointing out that he's worked in government.
I don't think it's here or there regarding whether his religious beliefs should be a factor in his campaign, it's just that while it sounds novel to people who don't know about the mormon church it would only be remarkable if he hadn't gone on a mission.
-
Harpazo
[Read the article: Romney and Huckabee's religious intolerance ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I see this argument a lot from people trying to convince me that this country is founded on the principles of christianity, and it's always regurgitated ahistorically. You, Harpazo, are confusing the Pilgrims and the colonists with the Founding Fathers.
The Pilgrims? Yes - very religious, viewed it as fundamental to society and their survival. It's also a large part of why many of them left England and Holland in the first place - to escape persecution.
The Colonists? More of a mixed bag. A lot of them were here for money and professing a belief in God was part of that (see: Church of England, East India Company, etc).
The Founding Fathers? Not so much. They weren't anti-religious, but they were well aware of how religion had interfered with their freedoms and understood that it was a bad idea to incorporate it into Government.
-
Not buying it
[Read the article: Campaigning while female]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ending with a cheap shot at John Edwards was pretty telling. Don't forget that he got endless haranguing in the press for getting a fancy haircut. Your belief that he's unacceptable because of how he looks and the focus of your article suggest to me that the problem's yours, not mine. And the fact that Hillary's leading the race suggests that the majority of people in this country aren't as hung up about this as you suggest.
That Rush Limbaugh will find an excuse to say Hillary isn't electable doesn't prove anything. That embarrassing photos of tired candidates get taken doesn't prove anything. That you found a few conservative bloggers/commentators who are willing to take her to task over ANYTHING - the triter the better - doesn't prove anything. She's still leading this race, which proves a large number of Americans take her quite seriously.
The "cackle" isn't notable because it's female. Like most people, I've heard many women laugh, sometimes even forced laughs. Clinton''s forced laugh is terrifying. The way her eyes glint and she pulls her lips back, heaving out bursts of laugh-like noise... It's very transparent pandering, not unlike GWB's chuckle. I've also heard her laugh genuinely, which is quite charming. Perhaps therein lies the problem, not in her femininity.
All of that said, if she wins the nomination I'll vote for her. I think she'd be a good president. I just don't think she's the best choice by a long shot.
-
Trust: Apple vs Google
[Read the article: The year in technology]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I find it funny that you view Apple as "benevolent but forced into contracts that limit the freedom of customers" and "Google as benevolent, but for how much longer?"
Apple is just a smaller version of Microsoft. I know you're a huge fan and all, but they're just as willing to shaft customers as Microsoft is. They're just dependent on their small-but-loyal client base, so when they piss them off (by charging too much for the iphone for instance) they have to answer for it.
Google has a bazillion products on the web that are often the only game in town, it's true, but I've yet to see evidence of them having a sinister motive behind it. They make good stuff. They understand what the market needs and they focus on doing it right.
-
the post wasn't "taken"
[Read the article: The recording industry isn't attacking iPods. Yet]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Not sure what your beef with the Post is, exactly, but it's a stretch to say they were "taken" by a lawyer here. Your article outlines many of the points theirs does: that the RIAA considers any copy theft.
That the particular case that leads off the story is more complicated than the defendant's lawyer is making it out to be is neither here nor there since the RIAA is claiming it has a legal basis beyond whether the files are shared or not. The same basic point you make after you say the Post was duped.
Oh, and the Post's article was posted online on 12/28 and printed 12/30 - not today. Minor detail.