Letters to the Editor
grrrlygirl
Published Letters: 29 Editor's Choice: 7
-
Imaginary friends
[Read the article: Why am I obsessed with celebrity gossip?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Here is an alternative explanation to Cary's gods/goddesses interpretation: Research shows that we subconsciously count celebrities among our own circles of friends. Like friends, celebrities comfort us in their ready availability. Anytime we want, we can access celebrities on-screen or in a glossy magazine. It's not unlike porn: A famous person is someone you might want to be like or be with (not necessarily in a sexual way), but celebrities' images will not reject your social invitations or hurt you like a "real" person would. Celebrities' travails only serve to make them that much more real to us (come on, who doesn't feel a bit sorry for Ms. Aniston in the wake of her divorce?).
I'm not summarizing it perfectly, but this article in Psychology Today from 2002 explains the phenomenon: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1175/is_5_35/ai_92136170.
My own theory: Because people, for whatever reason, cannot avoid gossiping, we learn about people who are more successful and beautiful than us to discuss them with other people. People who are "into" sports do the same thing. Knowing celebrity gossip is a way to make small talk for non-sports fans (and yes, I know, there are people who are fans of both sports and celebrity gossip).
Incidentally, I have the same problem as the letter writer--and wish someone would start a movement to boycott celebrity gossip. Sometimes I find myself skimming PageSix.com or reading about Jessica Simpson and Paris Hilton (and fuming about their seemingly undeserved success) rather than studying for the bar exam. But such a boycott will never fly, because images of skinny, tanned blondes just sell way too many magazines for celebrity rags to go away.
-
either stop running Ayelet Waldman's columns or bury them
[Read the article: I was conned by JT Leroy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I couldn't read beyond the first page of this little slice of solipsism. I consider myself a reasonably literate, well-informed person; as someone who was an English major in undergrad, I do keep track of major literary trends. Yet I'd never heard of "JT Leroy" before. Having clicked on the link to the story, I'm not about to run out and see what the fuss is all about now. This is NOT worthy of being Salon's lead, even on a slow news day (which this most certainly isn't). Bury this column in A&E/Books where it belongs. I would not have bothered to try to read it had it not been displayed so prominently.
Ayelet Waldman, as usual, is surprisingly clueless for someone who went to Harvard Law School (Remember the column where she seems to think that the best and highest way to indulge her love of babies would be to get pregnant for the fourth or fifth time? Rather than, say, adopting, waiting for grandchildren, volunteering in the neonatal ICU, taking in a foster child, or even babysitting? I quit reading her after that particular article--until today.). Then again, half the people at my second-tier law school were likewise otherwise ignorant legal savants...
-
Presidential impeachment doesn't necessarily lead to (gulp) President Cheney
[Read the article: 2006: Bush's Waterloo?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Cheney could be impeached himself; pull a Spiro Agnew (bloody unlikely); or finally suffer one too many "cardiac events" (although we could see a "Dave"/"Moon Over Parador" situation--i.e., an actor paid to play the role of Cheney--in that case).
Shudder.
-
Clinton: Rice = Outmoded: Outdated
[Read the article: Molly Ivins on how lame Hillary Clinton is]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ivins' column reminds me of those unfortunate, however unlikely, forecasts of a Condoleeza Rice-Hillary Clinton presidential matchup in 2008. As much as I'd prefer Clinton as president to Rice, Ivins' words evoke the similarity between Clinton and Rice. Both women are certifiably (i.e., on paper) intellectually brilliant. But they are inept in their own ways: Rice's ideas as to foreign policy in the post-Cold War world are so far beyond passe that they're dangerous, as we've sadly seen, while Hillary (if you accept Ivins' argument) has not clued in as to domestic policy or politics in the post-2000 election world.
I'm waaaaaaaaaaiting for a tough, smart, and with-it woman to step up to the forefront of national electoral politics.
-
No deposit, no return
[Read the article: Pee-male]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thank goodness the online store where this thing is sold sees fit to specify that there are "no returns" of the Feminal...
-
Did anyone else see the pro-life ad beneath this story?
[Read the article: Helping men deal with abortion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]At one point, Google Ads served up an ad for a vendor of pro-life "gear" beneath this Broadsheet story. It featured a picture of a big-eyed too-adorable-by-half baby and presumably sells things like bumper stickers and T-shirts for pro-lifers. I didn't click though and haven't been able to get it to pop up again--but considering that the general stance of Broadsheet contributors is pro-choice (as is my stance), I was...well, if not amused, baffled by the just-a-little-bit-off inefficacy of Google Ads.