Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
it matters
Published Letters: 42
Not exactly a scathing rebuke of malls and our culture of mega-store consumerism, as I think the author would like us to believe. What with quotes such as, "I cannot emphasize enough that the entire endeavor was done out of a compassion to understand the mall more and life as a shopper." and "The Apartment in the Mall was never intended to be specifically an ‘art’ piece...", you would think the author was writing about some other couple that moved into a mall. Those quotes appear on the couple's Trummerkind site detailing their experiences living in a mall, in thier own words. But that was months ago--like, 10 whole months. Now it has meaning! Pfft. This article reads like an attempt to apply deep meaning to a funny, but otherwise meaningless act of vandalism. Still, I don't doubt that Michael and Adriana now believe their actions at the time were heartfelt and pure, or that they had the intent to open some minds and begin an honest discussion about wasted spaces, but when a 4-week stunt turns into a 4 year game of hide-and-seek, a protest it does not necessarily make. Just as an article searching for meaning in one without does not a lead story on Salon make.
Is Obama too black, too tall, too elite, or too famous for American voters? Is McCain too old, too balding, too much maverick, too cancer prone for American voters? I suppose if voters really need these and other burning questions answered, questions that I doubt people asked themselves until pudits told them it mattered to them, then we deserve the worst democracy our electorate gives us.
Is it possible that Obama and McCain are tied in the polls because no one is seriously reporting on them? Or that the news media still believe that reporting rumor and innuendo are legitimate to the process of electing a president?
Instead of worrying about polls and hand-wringing analysis about whether race is a factor, perhaps we first need answers as to why those questions are even being asked of us to consider.
A real discussion about race is needed in this country, but why are we being asked to consider it in this context? Show me the proof that I need to be concerned with these questions.
Not sure why you feel it necessary to introduce yourself in every article as a former elite anything. In your articles you don't seem like a jerk with a dark soul. You just come across as a real buzzkill.
Glad to read you were able to control the beast within, but as a former elite gymnast you should know recall that even if you don't stick your landings you have to flash that smile to the judges.
You'll probably be screaming at this letter in a fit of rage, but it's just a game, no matter how elite they are. Yeah, that means that all the physical and mental scarring you and today gymnasts incurred during your ascents to elite status in the grand scheme of things ultimately was without lasting meaning. So what. The universe didn't implode when you stopped competing. You didn't have to get a perfect score so a bus load of kids wouldn't die.
Most well adjusted people, the ones you're probably watching these events with, probably just want to be entertained. And unless you're tying them up and forcing them to watch with you, they probably enjoy your company.
That beast is called immaturity. Keep learning.
Really? Are we officially a Christian nation? You really need to ask?
I'm an atheist, or more accurately a non-theist, and even I accept that most of America identifies with one form of Christianity or another. Correct me if I'm wrong, but with the lone exception of Joe Lieberman's 2000 VP run with Al Gore we've never had another non-Christian candidate on either major party's ticket.
I'm also a registered Democrat, though independent minded, and I've voted for politicians that clearly pandered to their "faith-based" base, as it were.
Why then are we still being subjected to this worrisome analysis that Obama is now somehow 'too Christian' and therefore a disappointment to his party?
Maybe, just maybe, if the press would only begin to worry about the candidates and their ability to govern our nation through some truly awful times ahead then maybe they wouldn't find it a necessity to a pledge of faith in order to get elected.
Joan, I think your question should be re-phrased, "Why are we in the media making our candidates prove to the electorate who is more Christian?"
Maybe, Salon could host a live online pray-off!
If you're getting all, or even some of your facts from...
1) a college drop-out and one time top 40 DJ turned talk radio host
2) a guy with a PhD in political science who writes an arguably libelous book with the intent to spread disinformation, with the help of
3) the former council to the current vice president and republican political consultant turned conservative editor
4) a website run by a guy who helped write that former top 40 DJ's first book, as well has having a role in helping to fund such conservative priorities as the Arkansas Project
...you probably shouldn't be handling such difficult and taxing tasks such as listening to a radio, reading, or using a computer, let alone the inter-tubes to get your scientific facts.
Incidentally, the same applies if you're getting your family values from the same 4 people who have been divorced a combined total of 7 times...wow.
Now if only there were a 24 hour news channel where you could just turn off your brain and watch all of these 'scientists' validate these facts without the, um 'facts' getting the way....hmm
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
