Letters to the Editor
What Difference Does It Make?
Published Letters: 35
-
@ Stellaa
[Read the article: Don't blame San Francisco for Obama's "Bittergate"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"First we have the Editor and the writers. A diverse group of writers brought together by an excellent editor to write analytical and critical articles. An editor with a point of view and courage. Why do we come here, to read writers that are not in the MSM."
No, this is what we used to have. Now, we have an editor who hires writers like Koppleman, Lind and Traister to write precisely the same sort of ill-researched, horse-race news with a clearly defined bias in no way at odds with the MSM.
"Second we have the general reader: We come here to find these voices, to challenge ourselves to get different perspectives. Yes we get angry, yes we get our ideas confirmed, yes we laugh and yes we turn the page."
The only thing I find challenging about reading Walsh, Lind, Traister, Koppleman -- even Sloane Crosley -- is to try and keep from banging my head against my desk in frustration and disbelief. Close your eyes and point at random to a paragraph of the most recent Walsh, Lind or Traister piece: you will find a statement in it that challenges reality and will, almost certainly, defy logic. The letter writers in these respective forums have identified many. Point to one different perspective in these articles, not readily available from a dozen other news sources.
"Third we have the letter writers: In the old days, we would post a comment and move on."
Sometimes, as when a writer refuses to acknowledge the validity of the points raised by scores of loyal letter writers, the correct response is not to move on. Or what is the point of writing in your opinion -- to feel good about your participation in a salon, irrespective of the response, or lack of it, you receive?
"What did you sacrifice to stop the war? What did you risk to change this country? You put up a poster, you went to a rally, you wrote on a blog and wrote a nasty letter here. Cowards the lot of you."
This is always the most idiotic critique. The point of criticism is not to immediately have ready a solution. From discussion and debate much good comes. The web site is called "salon.com" not "undergroundresistance.com". In any case, I would say that Glenn Greenwald and his readers have done more for the cause of democracy -- through blogging, and letter writing, and awareness raising -- than any succession of peace or protest marches, although I'm in no way demeaning these or other more forms of traditional, physical protest. What other specific actions do you have in mind that would earn your respect and be effective? When opposing the most powerful military-industrial complex in the history of the world critique, and the communication of critique, are valid and valiant activities. Or should we take turns lighting ourselves on fire in public squares?
Point to something horrid. The letters, in this thread for instance, criticize Ms. Walsh for having submitted an article that fails your first criterion. It's not analytical. It's not critical. It's not courageous. It is, as many writers have commented, cynical in portraying as a "firestorm" what the public, in whose name Ms. Walsh expresses outrage, when it was asked, cared not a whit about. Even by MSM standards, the article was poor in substance and style. As the first letter in this thread stated, it was, in many places, incoherent. I doubt it would it have made it past the editor's desk of any metro daily.
As I've said in other threads there should be a moratorium on metaphors of war and violence, as long as the United States is actively engaged in a real war. Salon letter writers are not kicking anyone in the face. They're merely trying to get ensure that the next person to hold the office of President won't participate in any more wars of aggression, won't send troops around the world to do much worse things to people than kick them in the face. Hillary Clinton does not seem to be this person. Why shouldn't we continue to be opposed to Democratic candidates who supported or, at least, enabled the "Bush administration and its actions"? Salon letter writers are not creating a new standard. They're just reminding Salon writers and editors what the standard is. Based on the evidence, Walsh et al. have forgotten.
When Greenwald goes, anyone who once believed in Salon will go too I expect.
Third we have the letter writers
-
Research for Obama Boys?
[Read the article: Beyond Vagina-dome]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Shouldn't you be on the phone to your girlfriends, doing research for your next breathless yet damning Obama boys exclusive? Beyond Obama-dome. A giant Obamatoris.
-
Masculinity Studies
[Read the article: Beyond Vagina-dome]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Chapters didn't invent this. It's just keeping up with the times.
Masculinity Studies has been offered throughout the Academy for a good decade and a half. Women's Studies and Masculinity Studies are frequently offered together as Gender Studies.
Ask Bryce (no relation of Rebecca?) Traister all about it:
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/american_quarterly/v052/52.2traister.html
Also, Rebecca Traister, who do you imagine you write for?
I was reminded of this discussion called "The Devil and Rebecca Traister" at Frolic and Detour. Sample comment: "Traister is so full of herself and such bizarre and outdated 'ideals' that she probably actually believes her own crap."
Traister, your feminism nose-dived at "Obama boys and your presumption to speak for "young women" despite having conducted nothing save anecdotal research. I can't read your stuff anymore. I don't know who could.