Letters to the Editor
melthough
Published Letters: 1264 Editor's Choice: 102
-
She better find a way to differentiate herself
[Read the article: Hillary commutes her views on Libby]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree that she should not have to answer for her husband's past actions. That said, if she is going to be the Dem nominee (and please oh please oh please I hope not), I do hope she learns to say this herself, loudly and clearly: "I am not my husband." She has to be able to stand up straight and tall and win on something besides her relationship to a past president.
Still, my inner child is sticking out its tongue at her and saying it's not fair that she doesn't have to answer for his mistakes when she is only the alleged frontrunner because of his popularity.
And does anyone actually know a Hillary fan? I really do not understand how she comes out so far ahead in all these polls when NO ONE LIKES HER. Most people I know are trying to decide between Edwards and Obama - or are supporting Kucinich and Gravel to help get their message out during the primaries. Maybe that's all it is; Edwards and Obama are dividing the majority of the vote. If the polls asked people to choose between HRC and Edwards, and then between HRC and Obama, I don't think she would have a chance.
I wish she would just drop out. It's clear to me that she is not good for the Dems, and she is not FOR the Dems. She is only for herself.
-
The problem with raising gas prices
[Read the article: Hip, hip, CAFE!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree with you on principle, had_enough: "So, we ought to just forget CAFE standards and tax the hell out of all fossil fuels. I mean, make it so gasoline is 12 bucks a gallon or more. And use the money to invest in alternative energy solutions for transportation."
But while we're waiting for those alternative energy solutions to show up, millions of people are going to go without food and housing because they can't get to work at their minimum wage jobs. I'd be all for this if it only affected the people who have a choice to move or switch jobs readily. But if we're really going to legislate something like this, we're going to have to require Wal-Mart, MacDonalds, etc., to shuttle people back and forth for their shifts or something. And that might cost those retailers a little bit of money.
I wonder if it has occurred to these large corporations who run our country that if they stopped spending so much on lobbying our legislators they might be able to afford more of the stuff that would further the common good.
-
I have a better idea.
[Read the article: Stop terrorism: Talk to women]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Will all due respect to the idealistic baroness, how about if we stop inventing flimsy excuses to bomb their countries and steal their oil. (Even though I know we really, desperately need that oil because who wants to walk four blocks in the rain? Boo. F word. Hoo.)
I am all for gender equality, but it sounds supremely selfish to propose it as a means to our own ends instead of actually changing our own lives and thereby solving the utterly non-mysterious problem of why the world hates us.
-
That Jesus Jones song!
[Read the article: The Hillary and Bill show]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Damn, those goosebumps make it so obvious that I'M THE TARGET MARKET.
I am still not ready to buy, though. Yes, I do want to wake up from history. It's just that I see the Clintons as part of history too. I like how this article shows the tightrope this extremely intelligent campaign is walking - asking people to buy the Clinton legacy while also asking people to buy that HRC would be something new.
I do NOT like how obvious it is that this is an extremely intelligent campaign. The selling of candidates as a product simply must stop. Is HRC promoting publicly funded elections? Proportional representation? Instant runoff voting? The end of the electoral college?
No, the most radical thing she lists in the election reform section on her website is making Election Day a national holiday.
I AM ready to wake up from this nightmare. But it doesn't look like she is making any major proposals to keep this nightmare from happening again. Her campaign says if we just get the Right People in there running things again, everything will be OK. I say the problems are deeper than that. We need to change more than who is in power; we need to change how they get there and how they are allowed use it. There are so many good models of democracy in the free world. Ours isn't one of them.
-
@Barb
[Read the article: Yesterday's ruling on NSA warrantless eavesdropping]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"And how would someone do the research to find out who contributed to these idiot's campaigns for election?"
opensecrets.org
-
Evolutionary psychology as the ultimate excuse for everything
[Read the article: Women want brawn for now, brains for good?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree with the poster who said that ev psych gets so incredibly facile. It seems like it gets worse the older I get, and the media certainly doesn't help. Why are we even asking the question of which body types women like to fuck vs. which body types women like to marry? For all we know, most of the men they slept with when they were 20 were no longer muscular when they were 30. And neither one has anything to do with being a dork or being nice. What a great way of putting it - brains vs. brawn is a trap just like the madonna vs. whore idiocy. Once again, gender stereotypes suck as much for men as they do for women.
Meanwhile, we can all just get back to our little lives without benefit of real enlightenment from evolutionary psychology. Studies about how we evolved can be useful for helping us understand our physiology, but on the subject of gender issues, it they are just a ridiculous little dry bean of outmoded assumptions rattling in a tin can. I wish ev psych would grow up and ask an interesting question for a change.