Letters to the Editor
calgodot
Published Letters: 259 Editor's Choice: 6
-
Censorious Americans
[Read the article: My body, my choice, my art project?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's amazing how many people are willing to offer critical comment on a work of art they've never seen, how hostile so many seem to the very idea of art.
It's amazing how weakly committed most Americans are to "free expression," how quickly the resort to calls of censorship and demands for conformity when their comfort-level has been breached.
It's amazing how shallow some feminists are when it comes to actually endorsing the philosophy, "my body, my choice."
It's amazing how deep and common the American desire for authority runs, how quickly "freedom-loving" Americans call for some type of authority, governmental or social, to restrict the liberty of those causing offense.
It's amazing that this trait seems equally powerful and common to both "liberals" and "conservatives." All you have to do is push the right button, and almost any American instantly reveals an Inner Fascist.
Broadsheet and Catherine Price ought to be ashamed of themselves: an issue of almost zero relevance being headlined as if it's important. But I guess that's the way things go in "journalism" these days.
-
Steph gives it away
[Read the article: The fallout from the Democratic debate]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When he defends his "gotch" questions as "going to the heart of electability," Stephanopoulos shows his hand: the only people concerned about "electability," the only people using that as a defense of their most heinous actions, are Clinton supporters. Steph rigged it, threw his questions out there in order to help the campaign of the wife of his friend and former employer. It stinks of collaboration, and Stephanopoulos (who never had much credibility to begin with) has shown himself as a faux-journalist who lacks even a shred of integrity. Once more, the Clinton campaign demonstrates the candidate is bereft of anything remotely resembling decency.
-
Why You Should Ignore WES
[Read the article: About that flag-pin question]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"The Notorious W.E.S." is a Republican. Anyone so viciously anti-Obama, who has no words of favor for his alleged preference (other than to repeat the weak refrain, "she's more electable"), is without a doubt a crypto-Republican, either in origin or effect, trolling here for outraged responses, posting repeatedly, while either collecting unemployment or shirking at his job.
I'll bet he doesn't even wear a flag pin!
-
No Agenda
[Read the article: I Like to Watch]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Matt and Trey have almost no politics. (One is more 'political' than the other - I'll leave it to you to figure out which is which.) What they have is a finely tuned bullshit detector and a developed sense that nothing is sacred. Evidence of a 'political' message in one show is likely negated by another show. In fact, they are known to create episodes with controversial subjects merely for the sake of provocation. They are satirists whose only identifiable agenda is to satirize their society. Those thinking they find "libertarianism" within South Park ought to better familiarize themselves with both the definition of the word and the show itself.
-
Keep Hope Alive
[Read the article: The painful task of measuring racism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's my hope that we're talking about lunatics who wouldn't vote for a Democrat anyway...
You are not. Here in Los Angeles, a supposed hotbed of liberalism and a majority of Democrats, I have on more than one occasion encountered pro-Hillary Democrats (mostly women, oddly) who express discomfort with the idea - not that they have a problem with it, mind you, but they "just don't think America is ready for a black President." They opine that Obama cannot win in November because of this. They comfort themselves that they are not racist, but merely "pragmatic." They prefer Hillary because of her "positions," they insist (but can rarely explain those positions, or differentiate between Obama and Hillary on those issues).
This racism is outwardly mild in comparison to the typical right-wing bigot, but it nonetheless runs quite wide and deep among some white Democrats. A minority, to be sure, but then racial bigots are fast becoming a minority in America. If the 8% number represents a national average, you can bet that at least 8% of Democrats will not vote for Obama simply because of his race. (You can especially see this when addressing issues such as immigration, where California Democrats and Republicans are often more alike than not. I have heard many excuse their racism on such matters because "Latinos are not a race.")
Keep hoping, Steve, but there are in all probability just as many Democratic Party racists as Republican ones.
Now, whether they are willing to throw an election to Madman McCain simply because of their own mistrust of dark-skinned people is another thing. Like you, I hope their racism is a vestigial remnant of our common history, and that no Democrat is stupid enough to shoot himself in the foot over that.