Letters to the Editor
melthough
Published Letters: 1343 Editor's Choice: 103
-
Moderation
[Read the article: American Girl: Lessons in shopaholism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"But most of those little girls are of moderately prosperous families doing something fun with their families."
I agree, and I don't think anyone has criticized them here. I am just shocked by the excess of some of these shopping expeditions, as portrayed in the original NYT article. I have a friend whose daughter makes clothes for her AG doll, and she usually gets one of those cool accessories for Christmas. That's why I and several other posters are emphasizing that we're not criticizing AG per se, but the spectacle of limitless consumption.
-
Real problems
[Read the article: Dobson vs. Cheney]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"We do have clear evidence that poverty has a significant impact and yet we don't devote similar rhetorical or financial resources into combating it."
Thank you, No Name Given! What an excellent reminder of the real problems we have in this country. We can't even agree on how many people are affected one way or another by having gay parents, but there are plenty of poor and maltreated children out there who demonstrably need help. How about a little more Focus on THEIR Families?
Somebody should tell James Dobson "the gay you will always have with you." Time to move on, you obsessive, controlling creep.
-
Your missing so much, Anonymous
[Read the article: Dobson vs. Cheney]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hey, did my apparent misuse of the possessive form get your attention, Anonymous? I hope so, because I think by applying too much weight to orthography - NOT the same as grammar, which is the underlying structure of natural language and does not cover the finer points of punctuation usage in our ridiculous writing system - I think you're closing your mind to the ideas of plenty of intelligent people. Many great writers with great minds make punctuation and spelling errors, and their editors correct them so readers won't be distracted. This is not a published book; it is an informal forum, and I think it's ridiculous to discount people's ideas because they make punctuation errors. Don't be such a school marm.
-
Peaceful orgasm
[Read the article: More on gender testing in sports]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes, unfortunately, meditating on peace makes me think about people getting random limbs/heads blown off. Not exactly conducive to orgasm. Though I'm just speaking for myself, of course. I think we'll give it a try anyway, since orgasm is pretty peaceful all by itself. It can't hurt! (Though again I'm just speaking for myself here....)
-
Sense of humor?
[Read the article: Not exactly what we were thinking]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I know that the column wasn't actually funny, but it was pretty clear that he was trying to be. I don't think it deserved a link from War Room or any of the vitriol the letter writers are giving it. I was just a weak joke.
-
She is a child to you
[Read the article: My 28-year-old girlfriend wants to do drugs -- just like I used to!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am not talking about your ages; I'm talking about the way you talk about her. I am not categorically against relationships between people of vastly different ages, but your attitude toward her sounds unhealthily paternal. Either that's annoying her and she's trying to manipulate you into breaking up with her, or she loves it and is playing the prescribed role of doe-eyed innocent. With codependents like these, who needs drugs?
-
Red Herring
[Read the article: Did Facebook give Obama a secret advantage?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why bother letting the Bush administration create distractions from the real news when the alternative media can do it for less?
Even if this allegedly privileged access to Facebook could be said to have any definable financial value, WHO CARES? Different campaigns are given constant privileged access to all sorts of media time. What about Fox's illegal campaign contribution to HRC in giving her extra time in the debates? Anyone can see it's unfair, but you would have a pretty hard time proving it's an illegal contribution.
Please stop with the red herrings. Yeah, maybe they stink. But that doesn't make them important.
-
This is an interesting issue
[Read the article: Did Facebook give Obama a secret advantage?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think it would have been better to approach it as such. Campaigning on The Internets is almost uncharted territory, as previous Salon articles have pointed out. I think the Tech Presidents people made it sound like a scandal prematurely; the writer then back-pedaled slightly and said he was only bringing it up to point out that we need to start thinking about what the legalities of such things should and will be in the future. And I think that is true. But as the legalities and even ethics of these things are far from determined, I don't think we should start out by making a stink and calling foul. We could have just started out by having a rational discussion. But the weird circumstances and in-fighting about whether this thing was in beta and whether certain press releases were enough, etc., etc., is just a little much for me to care about analyzing when the entire campaign and electoral system is screwy from the constitution up.
Yeah, let's talk about what's right and wrong and legal and illegal in the electronic portion of people's campaigns. Yeah, if we see some kind of scandalous pattern, let's call powerful media people (not sure facebook counts...) on that. But while we argue details of one candidate's privileged access to one startup company's beta platform, let's not forget that the big goal is to rework the entire system with publicly funded, traceable elections, a fully enfranchised electorate, and possibly even proportional representation - you know, like a modern, civilized democracy. If we were doing it right, things like this wouldn't even be an issue.
-
What are you trying to say, JA?
[Read the article: The American Life League finally tells the truth]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"the logical people
People here are so great at parsing logic, parse this:
A = empower the fetus, ignore the poor
B = ignore the fetus, empower the poor
Apparently, you only get to pick one."
I'm not clear on your logic here, but since I do know your posting history I'm guessing you're trying to accuse current posters of only allowing people to pick one. May I remind you that the current posters are NOT the people who phrased the argument in these terms, and are in fact the ones presenting a more nuanced point of view regarding the relationship between poverty and abortion?
The artist previously known as Paula