Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 55 Editor's Choice: 4
-
I was told there would be no math...
[Read the article: Feinstein: I'll back the filibuster after all]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It ain't about the math, Tim; it's about the fact that if this country stands for anything, it stands for NOT HAVING A KING. Supporting a filibuster on Alito's nomination represents the best, highest-profile means available to senators of any (or no) party affiliation of standing up against the massive, illegal, unconstitutional and bloody well unpatriotic unitary executive power grab going on in front of our very eyes. If the White House can ignore laws and deceive the other branches with impunity, the house of cards that is this delicate democracy comes crashing down in a heap - and a Supreme Court nominee who clearly supports that White House's "interpretation" of the power dynamics in American government must not be installed without a fight.
Will the filibuster stop Alito's nomination? Of course not. That's not the point. The point is that in two or five or ten or fifty years, when people ask who stood up against this despotic attempt to pervert everything America represents, the Democratic Party must, if it is worth a damn, be able to stand up proudly and say it did everything it could, even in a losing cause.
As for Feinstein, I'd like to think that my call yesterday, and the calls of dozens of my friends, family and other Californians, played some small part in her sudden spinal transplant - and that, my friend, is no small feat. Let us hope that the better angels of the Democrats' natures succeed in spurring them to be who they should be, who their constituents expect them to be, who their country needs them to be. Onward, friends. We ain't dead yet.
-
Plug and Play
[Read the article: Hipster rebel punk outsiders -- 99 cents a dozen]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Indeed, his primary reaction is not revulsion but envy: 'They believe in something. It's more than many of us can say.' What most of us believe, Niedzviecki thinks, is not just a lie but a cheap and secondhand lie."
Am I supposed to feel sorry for you all?
No offense, Mr. O'Hehir - I'm an admirer of your work for Salon. But frankly, I relate neither to Mr. Niedzviecki's angst nor to your "uncomfortable" sense of seeing yourself reflected and implicated in those he documents. I see nothing inconsistent with corporatism or fascism in a message of non-conformity created and marketed to the public by corporations (no high horse here; I'm an Apple user). And I don't see what's so mystifying about a society of wannabe celebrities who can't formulate blueprints for their own fantasy success beyond the ones they see on TV; isn't that nothing more nor less than a clear-cut failure of imagination?
Personally, I love going to karaoke bars - not because I imagine myself a star, or even want to goof on being one. I do it because I love to sing, and as a 37-year-old man whose last band was 15 years ago, I have no other opportunity to do so. At the risk of turning this simple pleasure into an emblematic gesture of defiance, in other words, I sing karaoke once in a blue moon because singing makes me happy; I love the authentic experience of it. It means nothing more culturally fraught than that.
And to my way of thinking, that's what Mr. Niedzviecki's subjects, and he himself, and apparently you, and perhaps 99% of the American public under 50 have lost touch with. Don't do things, don't make choices in your life, because someone else tells you you ought to, or ought to want to. Do them and make them because they have meaning for you. Because they give pleasure to you. In this world, the only true non-conformity is listening to your own heart and soul and ignoring the whole question of who else, if anyone, hears the same song.
And not to be glib, but anyone who can't figure that one out, I ain't got time for.
-
Will You Marry Me, Heather?
[Read the article: I Like to Watch]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That's it. That's all. It'll just be between us. My wife doesn't even have to know. And if she finds out, she'll be fine with it. (She loves "Deadwood" too.)
-
I still want to marry you...
[Read the article: I Like to Watch]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...but the song's called "Baba O' Riley." Gotta take off a point for slight ineptitude of reference - although, to be fair, who the hell spent any time reading the back of the cassette case while they were making out in the back of a Pinto? Christ, you had to be Shields and/or Yarnell just to get a bra unhooked in one of those things.
-
So ignore them already.
[Read the article: Reproduction of the rich and famous]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have to echo and amplify the other posters' sentiments. This article reminds me of the bloviating spun into term papers in academia: its thesis is obfuscated by lines upon lines of over-obvious evidentiary "insights" which pile up an impressive amount of jargon familiar to someone in the discipline (read: phrases the term paper writer has heard the professor use a lot), but whose connection to any sort of point worth making beyond hearing oneself speak is unclear. This isn't "Media Studies 205: Seminar on Celebrity," it's Salon; if Joan and the gang throw something up for us to read, the act carries an implicit promise that the information contained therein is worth having. Most Salon readers, however, don't need this article to tell us that Angelina and Katie's PR-driven maternity campaigns aren't worth two ounces of our attention, much less our emulation, and we don't have the institutional power to bestow extra credit or a Summa stripe on anybody's gown. Neither the worship of celebrity parenthood nor its ponderous deconstruction are interesting or relevant enough to merit a forum on this esteemed site, IMHO - at least, not unless the writer has some genuine and original insights to offer. No offense, Mr. Harris, but this is a B-, at best.