Letters to the Editor
Samson141
Published Letters: 107 Editor's Choice: 7
-
He's already ruined it
[Read the article: Lately I've been kissing women I'm not married to]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How good is your marriage now that you have planted these seeds of deceit and betrayal between you and your spouse?
If you really did have a good close marriage where you honestly communicated and trusted one another, you have poisoned that with this conduct. Even if your wife never finds out, you know; and it will be a barrier between you.
You've already crossed the line; you might as well have fucked her.
And the question: "what's my problem?" is plain and you know it. You're weak and selfish. All men lust, you succumbed. And the best Cary could do was to tell you was to avoid situtations that will test your weak virtue again. It's like telling an alcoholic to stay away from liquor; it's an obvious tack at first, but sooner or later you're gonna have to address the bigger issues because liquorand wine, like women, are ubiquitous.
-
@ P. Goodwill
[Read the article: Lately I've been kissing women I'm not married to]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"His own need for attention, for that rush of desire, for newness can coexist with his commitment to his marriage."
This is nonsense. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
By the way, do you expect your spouse to date others? You cool with that?
-
What -- fat, bald, and dweebish looking isn't
[Read the article: National Review's new tough guy, Mark Hemingway]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]masculine? There are some who might say this is the epitome of masculine. The gay guys are the ones who are tall, handsome, and buff. I mean come on. And if those stylish ones aren't gay, their all "metrosexual" which sounds close enough to homosexual thank you very much.
-
@ Mr. Greenwald
[Read the article: National Review's new tough guy, Mark Hemingway]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"It isn't exactly the iconic Courageous Warrior, waiting outside the to take the "sissy mary's" lunch money."
Not to quibble, but I don't think "courageous warriors" take weakling's lunch money. That's more the job of the beach bully in those Charles Atlas ads from way back.
As for a title:
"Oh So Faux Macho"
-
titles
[Read the article: National Review's new tough guy, Mark Hemingway]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]THE RIGHT STUFFed codpiece
Vote testosterone!
The Jack Bauer Party
When Fifth Grade Wannabe Bullies Ruled the Free World
Testosterone Poseurs
The Wizards of Virile
(Never Mind that Viagra behind the Curtain)
-
Glenn, ya lost me here ...
[Read the article: National Review's new tough guy, Mark Hemingway]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"This is examining their relevant attribtues to see if they embody the virtues they accuse others of lacking."
Perhaps I misunderstand but why must a commentator possess attributes that he or she deems desirable in others. Suppose I'm a serial liar and a coward. Would I be unqualified to express my desire for a President or Judge etc. that was honest and brave? Why must I embody the traits I long for in others?
-
Or how about ...
[Read the article: National Review's new tough guy, Mark Hemingway]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]PACKAGING (Elections as popularity contests and the Right's success in claiming tradition and masculine power as its exclusive province)
-
@ blogarillo
[Read the article: National Review's new tough guy, Mark Hemingway]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]-- "If you are a serial liar and coward and decry others for being serial liars and cowards, then you are a hypocrite, and that is the point here."
No, if I am able to recognize these failings in myself, I can also recognize them in others. Is a Doctor who smokes or is overweight unqualified to tell you that you shouldn't smoke or that you need to lose weight?
-- "Where do any of these people come off looking down their noses at the "wimps" of the left when they themselves seem to possess the attributes they are mocking?"
They real questsion (and I think it is the one Glenn is asking) is: Where do these people get off calling ours wimps when (1) ours are not and (2) their's are phony cowboys?
-
another
[Read the article: National Review's new tough guy, Mark Hemingway]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Selling the Sizzle - when there is so much at stake
-
Glenn, his looks are irrelevant to to critiquing his attacks
[Read the article: National Review's new tough guy, Mark Hemingway]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Suppose Mark looked like Clint Eastwood, Bruce Willis, Arnold, or the Marlboro Man. Would it make his attacks legitimate? Would his looks give him the "standing" to question others' masculinity? His looks are beside the point, to wit - the attacks, while frustratingly effective, are bogus and hypocritcal. The hypocracy does not come from his own looks, it comes from the false masculinity of the chickenhawks at the helm of his Party.
-
Shoeless Clueless Joe
[Read the article: Joe Klein digs Time's hole deeper still]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Joe's left with only three options and none particularly good:
- he was easily duped
- he was complicit in spreading the lies
- he is ignorant and lazy
Come to think of it, it's probably some of each.
-
Parenting is hard work ...
[Read the article: Has Judith Warner gone too far?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]and some people are far too lazy, ignorant, or insecure to be good parents. In short, it is not a question of not involved enough or too involved nearly so much as it is a question of the willingness and ability to be a decent parent - one who draws lines, gives kids enough slack to gain experience (not over protective), protects when needed, loves unconditionally, explains, shares, etc. Some "adults" are perpetually stuck in puberty and are apparently prone to want to be their child's peer rather than their child's parent (see the myspace incident).
-
Silly me ...
[Read the article: Well, then, let's call it a day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I thought freedom required tolerance, including for those who choose not be religous.
-
Anon
[Read the article: Well, then, let's call it a day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"a truly good religion" ??
Which ones are those? Buddism? Jewish? Hindu? And for the rest - Christianity in particular (Crusades and Inquisitions anyone?) not to mention Islam, do their followers adhere to the commandments that the unbelieving be tolerated, much less respected?
By the way, have you read the speech? The damning of the "religion of secularism" strikes me as a tad intolerant. But that's just me I suppose.