Letters to the Editor
blunderdog
Published Letters: 509 Editor's Choice: 10
-
If I Wanted Video, I'd buy a Teevee
[Read the article: Our partnership with Current]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not thrilled with the videos so far.
I come here to read stuff (and get coverage) I can't find elsewhere. That's important to me, and why I subscribed.
The videos are a fine idea as long as they don't detract AT ALL from the other content.
Alas, as a student of film/video, the "v-blogs" I've seen here have been uninspiring.
Generally speaking, it doesn't make sense just to put a talking head on the screen. In TV news and magazine shows, if you pay attention, you'll notice that it's very rare to see a long (meaning more than a few seconds) shot of a person's face, talking from the center of the screen.
These things would be improved a good bit (I opine) by moving the blogger off-center and putting something visually engaging behind them, OR by cutting to some different views which reinforce whatever it is being discussed.
Another technique which would be more interesting would be to have more than one person speaking on the subject. That would also present good editing options.
-
How Giuliani Could Win My Vote!
[Read the article: This Modern World ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]He could move the White House to Fallujah!
(Ok, ok, I'm kidding. I still wouldn't vote for him. Has anyone seen Rudy's new mistress yet? I hear that's the real reason he decided to run for Preznit--he's looking to trade up.)
-
More Radical than Thou
[Read the article: Democratic complicity in Bush's torture regimen]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Go read every single one of those "more-radical-than-thou" sermonizers...
--GG
Well, I've called for a tax revolt a few times. Whether I'd also post here my own participation in such acts or not is perhaps less an indication that I'm not doing it myself than that I fear government retribution.
Never got a reply, either. I see no evidence that ANYONE has the guts to take the risk.
I do think it's amusing that we all judge the spineless Dems so harshly when they're really just a reflection of the times.
-
Might One Acknowledge...
[Read the article: Quote of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...that the evil perpetrators of the "women must be stick-thin" body standard are, in fact, other WOMEN?
I've never seen a guy be as vicious-ruthless-meanspirited about a woman with a few curves as women when they talk about each other.
As for JLH, her figure looks great, but I do think she looks a bit less "balanced" since having the breast reduction.
-
Thank God for Dubya
[Read the article: Makeup, un-Islamic dress bring death]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Spreadin' Freedumb and Democracy to them wacky 'Rackies.
They're free now. Free to kill their women. Exactly what the CINC had in mind, I'm sure.
Should this be a surprise? Look at our allies, the Saudis.
-
@ Juliebird
[Read the article: Quote of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]4. Given 1-3, there is precious little hope for real women and girls to develop realistic expectations about their natural bodies and beauty, nor is there much hope for real men to understand what a realistic, beautiful, female body should look like.
Only if you believe that people can't think for themselves.
A pretty bleak perspective, which, if correct, highlights a far more serious problem than women's body image issues.
-
Anecdotally
[Read the article: Someday, bras will be writing this blog]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If those big boobs really are such a hassle, the three young women I know who had breast reductions were all quite pleased with the results, and there's none of that unnatural crap left over in your body afterwards.
I occasionally consider getting work done on my double chin. Pricey, tho.
-
I Think domini Nailed It
[Read the article: The question of self-defense in domestic violence]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Self-defense law is all screwy. Individuals in life- or health-threatening situations very definitely need legal recognition for their motivation, and it should be an important aspect of both indictment and sentencing.
But I don't think women who kill abusive men should automatically get a pass.
I think the better approach is to come up with a useful and meaningful definition for the CRIME of "justifiable homicide," and be disciplined about using it consistently.
In cases where there's serious doubt, let the prosecutor charge the killer with both murder and justifiable homicide, and kick it to the jury to determine guilt on each charge. A killer who was truly acting to protect their health/life should be able to make that claim convincingly to a jury.
I found this an interesting statement: It isn't up to their victims to make the abuse stop. from eava
Who is it up to?
-
Funny Stuff
[Read the article: "When Women Rule the World"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think it's a horrible press release, definitely, but I can't see any way to take any of it seriously. It's a reality teevee show which is SO utterly absurd in its conception that it might actually make for interesting drama. Is there really anyone out there who'll use this as evidence in a discussion of women wielding power in the real world? Tucker Carlson, maybe? Rush?
I hope they make it available online. It sounds like there's potential to me. But hey, I admit it, I enjoyed Jackass.
I'd like to see variations, too. Kids command adults. Homeless people command hedge fund managers. Untrained non-athletes make all the team decisions in sporting events.
-
@ eava
[Read the article: The question of self-defense in domestic violence]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is up to abusers to stop abusing or accept the risk that their victims may kill them.
That doesn't really make any sense, unfortunately.
The abuser is not likely to suddenly see the light and stop the abuse. These are people who have already demonstrated that they're NOT observing society's laws/rules.
Interesting that you added the "or accept the risk..."
That "risk" is a risk of the abuse victim taking control of the situation, which actually falls right back to the idea that it IS up to the abuse victim to stop the abuse.
Seems like a bit of a contradiction to me.