Letters to the Editor
calgodot
Published Letters: 179 Editor's Choice: 5
-
Cheney-Coulter
[Read the article: Coulter: "Who's running this holocaust in Darfur, FEMA?"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The GOP Dream Ticket!
CHENEY-COULTER 2008!!!!
-
Another vote against Anonymity
[Read the article: Salon's new letters registration policy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree that allowing "Anonymous" postings will invite more abuse or paranoid ramblings. Count me as a vote in favor of eliminating the "anonymous" option.
If you don't believe in something (say, medical marijuana) enough to stand up for it, then you're just mouthing empty platitudes. It doesn't speak highly of your courage or your belief in something (say, medical marijuana) that you won't take the slight risk of exposing your support.
Complaining that someday someone might knock on your door and cart you away for something you post on Salon.com is ridiculous. After all, you can use a faux internet moniker, sign up for free email somewhere, and enjoy as much anonymity as you prefer.
And if you're afraid of an employer finding out you're in favor of something (say, medical marijuana) and punishing you, then I suggest following the above advice or finding a new employer. Or even better: waiting for said employer to discover you and fire you, then hiring a good lawyer and spending the rest of your life living off said employer's settlement of such a blatant violation of your rights.
(FTR: I am pro medical marijuana, and not afraid to let anyone and everyone know it.)
-
Let me get this straight...
[Read the article: May they please the court]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...and I do mean "straight" metaphorically.
A supposed feminist, writing for Broadsheet, an ostensibly feminist column, is in favor of a women being punished economically for expressing her sexuality?
What is this? Neo-Next Wave faux-minism?
From forcing young girls to receive government-mandated vaccinations to punishing women with trangressive sexual tastes, it seems Broadsheet's "feminists" exhibit an intolerant, conformist, totalitarian edge.
Must be the times....
...sigh...
-
Alas
[Read the article: Playing chess with Kurt Vonnegut]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Not even a thread of respectful reminiscence may be free of the Anonymous troll.
R.I.P. Uncle Kurt. You deserve the R and the P.
P.S. Salon: eliminate the anonymity option and rid us finally of trolls. These bridges will be much safer and easier to cross.
-
Good Ole Anonymous
[Read the article: The end of the affair]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Good Ole Anonymous! So lacking in cleverness he can't even think up a good pseudonym; so lacking in grace he cannot bear the joy of others. Pity the poor fool - he has nothing, and no one, of value in his narrow little world.
-
P.B.S.
[Read the article: "America at a Crossroads" veers to the right]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]P.B.S. = Predictable Bullshit
Tragic how neo-fascist thinking has poisoned every corner of America.
Tragic. But on the whole, not surprising.
-
Deflating the Pompous
[Read the article: Lord of the ruins]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I was relishing the chance to deflate the pompous ass Apollonius, who himself apparently lacks the humanity he fails to see in Tolkien's master works, but WRellim beat me to it, and did a fine job of it.
-
Sympathy for the Devil
[Read the article: No reprieve for Alberto Gonzales]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You feel sorry for Libby, Walsh? That makes you a fine example of the chief problem facing journalism in America: so privileged yourself, you have sympathy for the felons who have used their own power and privilege to debase this nation, to destroy the lives of others, and to murder innocents in the pursuit of their self-righteousness. You've made it abundantly clear that your own identification with these prep school white boys has colored your editorial judgment. You're clearly incapable of anything remotely approaching objectivity. You are, quite simply, a waste of time.
-
Where do these nuts come from?
[Read the article: School shooting suspect named]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]From under what rock did you crawl, "Obewan?" Your tinfoil hat is far too tight. Can you draw a line, even if it's in crayon, from mass murder to freedom of speech? What "makes sense" to a nutbar like you is insanity to the rest of us.
By the way, lunatic: pornography is legal. So is adultery. Which means it's legal for me to tell you to go fuck yourself, legal for you to view some porno to get in the mood, and legal for you to do it, even if you're married.
-
Such compassion, such depth
[Read the article: "I think he was just a confused kid"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have faith in my alma mater's English department. They take to heart the lessons in being human from the literature they study...
Guess you missed that lesson.
"An asshole is an asshole" indeed.
-
American Totalitarianism
[Read the article: Why Democrats dumped gun control]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The growing desire of Democrat/liberal voters for federally mandated "gun control" is among the many things that convinces me America will inevitable become a totalitarian state.
Republicans/conservatives want federally mandated laws banning abortion, flag burning, and a number of other rights which seem guaranteed in the Constitution.
Democrats/liberals share this desire for a totalitarian nanny-state. They just differ in the details.
Both parties are united in one desire: to give the government ever more power to control our lives and impede out liberty.
When both parties, representing a large majority of Americans, desire such things and push for such things, how can we avoid living in a police state?
-
Let's not forget...
[Read the article: Supreme Court upholds ban on "partial-birth" abortion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let's not forget that the SCOTUS decision also hands a juicy apple to Democrats. Abortion rights has long been the fear-button used by the Democratic Party to motivate voters (particularly women voters). The party now has incontrovertible proof that the threat posed by the GOP to women's reproductive rights is real. Anti-woman judges are no longer a spectre of fevered and fearful imaginations: they are now manifest.
Because it affects so few women and represents such a minority of abortions, and because the Court has placed its seal on the issue, it is now a politically "safe" topic to debate in public. For Democrats, it is a blessing in disguise: the dissenting justices plainly spell out the issue - the safety of the woman - which creates a classic moral/ethical dilemma concerning the "higher good" ("save the mother" vs. "save the baby"). Republicans can savor a small victory while continuing to rally their base with promises of more laws (and more pocket-sized justices).
This decision is a nice gift to those Democrats running for President, especially Hillary Clinton, who one hopes will not waffle and waver on this issue as she has done recently with regard to other controversial matters. Democratic candidates can now proudly proclaim their intent to restore "balance" to the Court. The direction each chooses to take on issue will say much about their character and candidacy.