Letters to the Editor
Paul Minot
Published Letters: 13 Editor's Choice: 5
-
Carroll's only real mistake
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]My two bits, as an admitted UT fan:
-The naive suggestion that you simply "pressure" Vince Young to beat UT neglects the fact that the rest of the team is pretty much top notch as well--especially their running backs and offensive line. And the assumption that Vince Young can't throw the long ball seems pretty dubious as well. I think USC was trying like hell to pressure Young--they just couldn't do it consistently, because USC's defense is simply not as good as UT's offense in any major aspect.
-I think Carroll's fourth and two call was right on. White had been running right through the UT defense, which looked worn out by then. As a UT fan, I myself was pleasantly surprised by the UT line's ability to reach deep and stand him up. Like Carroll said--he had control of the ball, and the clock, and if he made it the game was over. Otherwise, 20 yards or so would have made no difference against Young, who was pretty much unstoppable by USC's defense.
-Which leaves Carroll's TRUELY big mistake--calling the timeout before the two-point conversion by UT. What the hell was he thinking UT was going to do? He should have figured out the math BEFORE Young made the TD, or immediately afterward, and prepared his team ahead of time. THIS was the one undeniable mistake that Carroll made that may have cost him the game--because with a timeout, I think that it was VERY likely that USC could have gotten into field goal range and put the game into overtime. Carroll clearly fell asleep at the wheel here.
-
For Ms. Zacharek's edification...
[Read the article: "Brokeback Mountain"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I finally got to see it last night, then came back to Salon to see how it is that this wonderful film could have gotten panned.
Having reread the review, Ms. Zacharek, I regret to say that it appears to be due to your own lack of perception.
First of all, the repressed expression of romance on the film is because it is about repressed love, as most articulately expressed by Heath Ledger's splendid acting. They weren't holding back to spare the sensibilities of the audience. They were holding back because in that era, the characters would have been holding back themselves. Because if they didn't, they could have been killed for it. Capiche?
Secondly, I never read the original story, but still didn't find the behavior of Jack's wife in her last scene at all "inexplicable". Since you apparently do not understand how people communicate without overtly explaining themselves, I'll walk you through it. She and Jack initially hooked up because he was cute, and she was rich. They had one child only, he probably wasn't the inspired lover she hoped, and they spent years in a loveless marriage. Then, he hooked up with a friend's husband with a half-baked plan (in that day and age) to live together openly. She got wind of it from the friend when her husband left her. Then Jack got beaten to death for being queer. She was pissed off and disgusted about the fact of Jack's homosexuality, likely thought he had it coming, and for all we know it was she and/or her dad that had him killed. And so she was parroting the scripted family lie (that cockamamie story of a blowout and hubcap) rather than acknowledging the shameful fact of her late husband's homosexuality. (After all, he WAS her child's father.) And she may or may not have suspected Ennis' relationship with Jack.
The next time you don't understand something in a movie, you should probably ask around before you use the word "inexplicable", and risk declaring your ignorance in an on-line review.
-
The Clark Solution
[Read the article: Out-hawking Bush on Iran]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Teddy Roosevelt's "Speak softly and carry a big stick" appears to have been supplanted by "Talk tough and cover your weaknesses". The transparent posturing of Clinton and Bayh is about as reassuring as George Bush's flight suit.
Democratics seeking to reassure the American public of our security bonafides in 2008 should instead consider nominating Wesley Clark, whose credibility on the issue is based on experience and expertise, rather than political theatrics.
-
In reply to btdenver
[Read the article: "Dave Chappelle's Block Party"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Your letter smacks of a frustrated consumer that that didn't get the goods he wanted delivered on time.
Dave is approaching his comedy as an artist, not a businessman. Rather than ship the order on time, he held it up because the quality of what he could deliver wasn't up to snuff. In TV lingo, he didn't want to jump the shark.
If you are consider the mediocre product of your typical American sitcom to be the gold standard of comedy, then there are plenty of other options available to you. Dave, God bless him, had the courage to renege on a 50 million dollar contract. Say what you will about him, but at least he isn't a whore--a rare quality nowadays.
Me, I think he has proven himself to be an artist. Because a true artist will ALWAYS "flake out" before they SELL OUT.