Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
True2Blue
Published Letters: 64 Editor's Choice: 5
I'm not someone who normally writes to publications, but after reading some of the letters from Salon readers lashing out at Stephanie Zacharek about her review of this movie, I feel compelled to point out a few things:
1) A movie critic's printed review is simply one person's opinion, and since this is still (for now) the USA, she is free to publish whatever opinion she has, just as you are free to write a rebuttal. However, to then proceed to insult and belittle a critic suggests that somehow your opinion is more valid. If any of you disgruntled readers have proof of that, please publish it so we can all see it.
2) If you feel a critic "hates every movie," then it would make sense that you would stop reading what that critic wrote, yet many of you appear to have read Ms. Zacharek's review anyway. Why are you reading (and then complaining about) a critic whom you've already decided doesn't speak for you? Are you simply a malcontent?
3) And if you "usually agree" with Ms. Zacharek's opinions, and are upset that you disagree on this one, so what? For a critic to be valid, does her opinion need to match yours 100% of the time? That sounds a bit arrogrant...
4) Lastly, the most disturbing aspect of some of the letters written by other readers is that they verge on trying to "shout down" a voice they don't agree with. How very "right wing." Sean Hannity would be proud of you.
It would be better to leave your mind open to the tiniest chance that Ms. Zacharek might have a point, or at least that her interpretation of the movie causes you to notice things you otherwise would have missed. In my opinion, you're free to reject an idea only after giving it a chance to be true.
You're welcome to try to shout me down now too, if you've got nothing better to do.
Having lived in the Bible Belt for eight years, I can say that a Democrat with a pro-choice agenda has essentially no chance of being elected there, or re-elected, unless he/she is both a well-established and well-liked incumbent. Blanco is not either of those, and if she wants any chance at re-election, she will have to sign the bill.
And we, as Democrats (presumably), should shut-up about Democratic leaders who, from this point on, follow the wishes of the majority of their constituents. Though a slight majority of people, even in the South, are pro-choice, a slight majority of PEOPLE WHO VOTE are anti-choice, as has been shown in many recent elections there.
I myself am as vocally pro-choice as you will ever find, but the harsh reality is that a politician's pro-choice position is a huge liability in conservative states, and that single issue alone likely accounts for the consistent losses the Dems have experienced there. I know many people whose sole criterion for whom they vote is the politican's stand on abortion. I applaud the Dems holding on to the pro-choice ideal only as long as it doesn't single-handedly hand the gov't over to the Republicans, which sadly it has.
So if Blanco must sign the bill to keep her job come re--election, then let her sign it. Let the Repubs have their way on this issue, let them own it, even reverse Roe. In the end, it will blow up in their faces. Smart Dems will be standing by to make political hay from it.
I'm not shocked to see such emotional, thoughtless letters on this topic, because I've seen it before from a select group of Salon readers, attacking news stories, opinions, and movie reviews. In the five years I've been a subscriber though, this seems to be the worst.
Ms. Walsh, I fear you have broached a topic which is simply too complicated to be understood by many of your readers. In response, you receive personal attacks and "threats" of subscriber cancellation, representing the type of emotional, reactionary thinking which long kept humans living in caves and worshipping sticks.
Attention--fellow Salon Readers: This is how science works. It is evidence-based thinking, and when disagreements occur, they are argued and debated. If you believe Kennedy has better evidence than Manjoo, then fine, believe what you will. But don't attack the intentions or motivations of the other side, or of those who presented the debate to you, or you'll be joining the ranks of Hannity, Limbaugh, and Coulter.
The crux of the current argument centers on statistics; it seems though that the technical end is beyond many readers, and so they fall back on emotionalism, believing what their "hearts" tell them. I suspect though, that statisticians familiar with these data, including those hired by Kerry and the Dems, feel that there simply is not enough evidence to pursue this matter legally. So Kerry and the Dems have moved on.
To those who seem certain the evidence exists to prove that Ohio was stolen, why not pursue it? I'm no lawyer, but I believe those who live in Ohio can file suit for infringement of civil rights. Oh, you don't think you'll get very far? That's probably how Kerry and the Dems feel, too. So shut up about it, or go out and dig up better evidence than what's already there.
Articles like Mr. Manjoo's (and Mr. Kennedy's) are exactly the reason I subscribe to Salon. I strive always to hear both sides of an issue.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
