Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 292 Editor's Choice: 33
-
Wrong answer
[Read the article: News you can abuse]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If there is a national steward of this culture, it is Drew
Uh, no, actually it's Chuck Shepherd, who has been running News Of The Weird a hell of a lot longer.
http://newsoftheweird.com/
His column is actually published in real newspapers too. You know, newspaper, that flimsy non-electronic medium you occassionally see sitting in metal-and-perspex boxes like rats in a bio lab.
For someone who writes about the web, Farhad, you really should look beyond your apparently limited bookmarks before you make sweeping pronouncements.
-
Marshall McLuhan knew
[Read the article: Rudy amid the evangelicals]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]white evangelicals ... broke for [George W. Bush] over Democratic candidate Sen. John Kerry 78 percent to 21 percent ... Fox News viewers, who went 88 to 7 for Bush
Congratulations, mass media! You are now a more effective brain-deading opiate than fundamentalist religion.
Mission accomplished, one might say.
-
Vying for the Puppet Candidacy
[Read the article: Rudy can fail]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Given the exposure the current administration has undergone here and in the Post recently, is there any doubt that the current cabal running the government is likely to cede power in 2008? Surely they are looking for their next electable figurehead, one who will wear the public mask while the same machinery grinds on inexorably, invisibly in the background.
I've not yet been able to determine who this puppet candidate is. Perhaps the cabal itself hasn't decided yet, and what we are seeing is public but coded audition for the part by Giuliani? Certainly he is aware that by adopting their tropes he is more likely to gain access to the power and influence they can provide a loyal pawn.
-
Out to pasture
[Read the article: McCain flees north toward home]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When McCain finally, sensibly, puts his Presidential ambitions out to pasture, can he take Biden's along with him? And take all of Lieberman while he's at it, we don't need any part of Jowlin' Joe anymore.
-
"Prince" should read "Peasant"
[Read the article: Bob Novak is not one of the popular kids]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How emblematic of the tribal fascism that underpins the modern conservative movement - each member considers himself a king and is in truth a serf. How easy it is to feel invincible within a mob, and how telling their actions when they discover at last they are alone.
-
The utility of the pious dupe
[Read the article: David Brooks' field trip to the White House]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Retired Military Patriot and others here have hit on one of the key factors in play - it is the people whom manipulate the president that matter. He himself may indeed be a pious dupe, one with a sincere but appallingly simplified view of morality. This being the case, it makes him very easy to direct by those whom he trusts. And they are the ones who guide his faith down paths productive to their own ends. Iran more evil than Darfur? Saudi Arabia not evil at all? You can be sure these are the judgments handed to him by his masters, couched in ways his naive theology is ready to accept.
I see no contradiction between his self-professed piety and his actions. His head is bereft of reason and instead cottoned with faith, and he is surrounded by those who can mold and shape that faith to their own dark design. Just as the ignorant but faith-filled plebian is swindled by the TV preacher, so too is the lamb of office led by the judas goats of empire.
He is a failed man, serving evil instead of opposing it.
-
Language use
[Read the article: "A persistent and evolving terrorist threat"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]1) Homeland is a term like Fatherland, designed to reinforce ideas of racial identity, nationalistic fervor, and country-as-personal-property. Its use is reserved for fascists, demagogues, and their apologists. No real patriot refers to their nation with such an imperialistic and exclusionary term, so beware anyone who does.
2) Can we settle on one damn spelling for al'Qaeda? Seriously, we've had over a decade to work on it. It's like Qaddafi all over again...
3) Political documents are meant to obscure, not to enlighten. They reinforce and impel the current agenda, excoriating any previous conflicting agenda whenever possible. Expecting otherwise is like being a creationist waiting for a fossil to finally turn up with Satan's signature on it.
-
"39 percent want a nominee more conservative than Bush"
[Read the article: Why the Republicans don't like their candidates]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Unfortunately, being a foreign citizen, Satan is unable to run for office. Still, I expect he'll continue to hold his cabinet position.
-
Ditch it
[Read the article: Who are you, Anonymous?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Assuming you've read this far through the voluminous replies, here's my vote. I've been vocally critising the Anonymous option for a while now. While noble in it's sentiment - some people need to remain anonymous because their opinion can put them in personal danger - it is too seldom used for that and too frequent a mask for craven malcontents.
Take a good look at what seems to be the biggest anon magnet - Broadsheet. There you can easily find threads dominated by anonymous trolls who bash women, equality, parity, and pretty much any other topic that Broadsheet exists to discuss. This is a fair index that the policy is a failed one.
While I've gotten into the habit of reading the names before the replies and skipping over the anonymous posters (and a few named trolls), removing the option will greatly improve the dialog quality overall.
-
Economics is not science
[Read the article: Academic reputation, alien news service, slain by World Wide Web]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If it were, it would work. But it doesn't, and no amount of peer review could save it anyway. Unlike actual science, peer review in economics amounts to getting the right people to nod sagely at your paper, most likely because it hoves to their own pet theory. It doesn't equate to tangible research or real-world empirical data, because there isn't much in economics. Essentially, economics is the attempt to understand the workings of a clock while standing inside it, seeing only parts of it at any given moment, and without knowing what time it is.
-
Pinch me
[Read the article: Ted Stevens' remodeling, or when the FBI does the final inspection]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A senior Senator with an (R) after his name being investigate for his ties to Big Oil? I must still be asleep. Either that or I lack enough information to work out how this master strategy is meant to play out. Granted, I don't think Deep Blue could work out this particular political chess match enough moves in advance either.