Letters to the Editor
tracker
Published Letters: 46 Editor's Choice: 12
-
Pathetic
[Read the article: My wife quit shaving her legs and it turns me off]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why, why, why is this discussion happening? Why are people engaging the troll? Mr. No Name is deliberately being inflammatory, and he's obviously not the sort to listen to reason. Don't engage him. Don't try to debate with him. Don't stoop to his level. He clearly loves the virtual sound of his own voice. This type of petty back and forth belongs in an actual forum, not a "Letters to the Editor" section.
Salon, you've blown it. If I want tired, dated, off-topic continuations of the gender wars, there are other places to go for them. I thought the new letters section was a wonderful idea when it was first introduced, but it's turned into a nightmare. Any article that has any bearing on gender issues turns into a mess, and it's usually the same set of posters who are clogging up this section over and over.
As far as this letter goes, I was very interested to read all of the different experiences that men and women have to the shaving issue, both pro and con. I applaud those who have come up with solutions that work for their own bodies and their own relationships. My own reaction has already been mentioned by some other posters: why can't this man simply talk to his wife about this? There are so many issues at work here for why people do and don't shave - personal, cultural, sensitive skin, seasons, sexual desire, etc. - that are impossible to verify from the wording of the original letter. I almost hope the LW doesn't bother to read this section, but if he does, I hope he takes the advice to open a discussion with his wife about it.
-
movies and madness
[Read the article: Introducing the Guilties!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The most amazing admission here was not what O'Hehir thought about any of these movies in particular, but the fact that he'd only seen one of them before he was assigned to do so.
Why is that so odd? He apparently went and saw all of the movies before he wrote the article. Who cares whether he saw them before he was assigned? Or are writers to be judged now by how they choose to spend their free time?
I liked this article, and I can't understand all of the vitriol against it. I haven't seen all of the best pic flicks myself yet (I simply haven't had the time), but I can say that I'm looking forward to seeing them now more than ever.
This wasn't an anti-liberal article. (And I love the assertion that Mr. O'Hehir should go work for Fox News, as if taking issue with a couple of movies is proof that one is secretly a member of the Evil Empire.) This wasn't an anti-message article. But when films set out to present a certain message, they'd better be damn entertaining when they do so. I love some message in my movies, but I can't abide being preached at. That's the one thing that will turn me off from a movie, no matter how much I agree with the underlying message. It's all about being subtle, not shrill.
I appreciate that Mr. O'Hehir chose to take a closer look at how the message is presented, not just the message itself. Or are we liberals supposed to show unequivocal support for a movie just because it espouses a typically lefty sentiment, no matter how clunky the method of delivery? Count me out. I'm very happy to hear that the majority of the reviewed films seem to be capable of the subtlety I love, and these are the movies I'll be giving my money to.
-
Secession? Please.
[Read the article: The I-word goes public]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is exactly the kind of response I was dreading: more red-state/blue-state false dichotomy. When this country is on the brink of a constitutional crisis, the moral choice is for the "blue states" to secede? Leaving aside the fact that this is completely impractical and impossible and would never, ever happen, I can't believe that people would ever consider this to be a solution. This is whiny hand-wringing. Way to absolve yourself of responsibility for the rest of the country.
So all of you self-indentified "blue staters" who sit so smugly in judgment on the rest us poor fools (and apparently on your fellow liberals as well, since we don't all happen to live in the same place as you), grow up and get over it. There's not a single state out there in which all of the citizens voted for either candidate. In fact, the split was so small in the last election that there are many cases where the difference between a "red state" and a "blue state" is a matter of a couple of percentage points. Hardly an overwhelming majority, if you ask me, and not a good excuse for smugness. Anyone who speaks so casually of the red-state/blue-state split, who thinks of half of this country as the "enemy", isn't someone who is going to be of any use in getting to the heart of the problems our country is facing.
So speaks this Texas Democrat (and East-coaster by birth, if that gives my statement any extra cachet). And believe me when I say that I don't want Bush back here, but I'll take him if it gets him the hell out of the While House.