Letters to the Editor
Wood Goblin
Published Letters: 28 Editor's Choice: 1
-
NOW's strategy was . . . what, exactly?
[Read the article: "Present" tension ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]NOW raises a really good point: what Obama should have done is pursued a strategy that could have failed simply for the symbolic importance of his vote, instead of having pursued a strategy that worked. Because, really, it's much, much more important to lose and be right. The women whose abortions could have been denied would definitely have appreciated that failing strategy!
Planned Parenthood cares about family planning options and the right to choose. The spokespeople for NOW care about . . . well, it's not really clear what they care about. Whatever it is, it doesn't appear to be success.
-
Not so fast!
[Read the article: "Because I love America ... I have to now stand aside"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]AP is now reporting that Romney has re-entered the race!
-
Super Bowl
[Read the article: NAACP head wants Florida, Michigan delegates counted]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Massachusetts is also upset that the NFL refuses to add an additional quarter to the most recent Super Bowl.
-
Zell's Bells
[Read the article: Zell: Clinton, Obama partially to blame for economic woes]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Obama's lead economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, is a bit of a superstar in the University of Chicago's economics and business programs. Richard Thaler, another U of C superstar and a pioneer in the field of behavioral economics, has done some campaign consulting with Goolsbee.
The notion that Obama is a far lefty hell-bent on destroying the economy is contradicted by the fact that he's enlisted some of the sharpest economic minds in the country as advisers. Put bluntly, Zell doesn't know what in the hell he's talking about.
-
Bravo, President Obama
[Read the article: Barack Obama delivers make-or-break speech on race]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What a speech!
I sincerely hope that all of the scandal-chasing pundit shitheels will be hanging their heads in shame after hearing Obama address the issue of Wright and of race in general.
-
Obama, Iraq, foreign policy, and media neglect
[Read the article: The real reason Barack Obama's divisive]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]For what it's worth, Obama just delivered a major policy speech regarding Iraq and foreign policy in general. It provides very specific outlines of his plans and policies, and even though Obama has been promoting it for days, Salon has yet to even mention a word about it.
The speech can be found here:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGBFrl
If we want to focus on serious issues, then let's talk about this speech.
-
Mortgage rate freeze
[Read the article: Obama's plan to change the economy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]HRC's proposed mortgage rate freeze isn't just "politically unrealistic"; it's also economically unrealistic. The Economist these proposed rate freezes to the price controls Nixon tried in the 1970s. There's no reason to think they'd work any better now than they did then.
I hope this is just political pandering on HRC's part. As policy, it's terrible. Frankly, even as politicking, it's a bad idea: the Republican congresspeople would vehemently oppose it, as would sensible Democrats--meaning that it would create a fissure in the party when we need unity and sensible policy more than ever.
-
Good god, what a waste of time
[Read the article: Finale wrap-up: "The Real Housewives of New York City"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why in the world would anyone on the planet want to watch this crap?
The number of hours that most Americans spend in front of the television set is shameful. The fact that several of those hours get devoted risible nonsense like this isn't just shameful--it's also puzzling. I mean, seriously? This is an acceptable use of one's time?
Here's a proposal: Salon, ask Heather Havrilesky to spend a few months *not* watching television. Require her to take a class or go on walks or read books or jog on the treadmill. Then, once her sabbatical from television has ended, require her to watch the season premiere of Housewives. She can then write an essay about the episode.
Here, I'll even provide the essay's first two sentences: "Good god, what a waste of time. Why in the world would anyone on the planet want to watch this crap?"
-
What about a show about Walker, Texas Ranger, only in space?
[Read the article: Finale wrap-up: "The Real Housewives of New York City"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Implicit in the remark about "why Democrats lose year after year" is a belief that they're simply not pandering enough.
As far as the show, it's not The Sopranos or Best of Youth or even Project Runway. It's about a bunch of big-titted bottle-blond space cadets who snipe at each other and buy expensive shoes. The only thing between this show and the barrel's bottom is Jerry Springer, and he's feeling cramped.
This show sounds like the second-worst way to spend your time. The worst way is to watch this show while pounding a nail through your testicles.
And my proposal was a serious one: spend a few months away from any and all television and see whether your perspective changes when you return to it.
-
While we're on the subject of bad economics
[Read the article: Wrong on the substance and the style]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Wall Street Journal reported this morning that Hillary reemphasized her commitment to freezing interest rates on subprime mortgages. (I didn't watch the debate, but this tidbit came from the news section and not the Op/Ed section, so I gather that it's true.)
Where is the press scrutiny of this claim? This is, pure and simple, bad economics. Price controls were attempted in the 1970s. Nixon tried them. (Interesting bit of trivia: Rumsfeld was in charge of attempting to carry them out, meaning that his political career more or less began and ended with major policy fuck-ups.) I read Salon, The New Republic, and several other media outlets daily, and I still haven't found any criticism of Hillary's lame-brained, blatantly pandering, fantasy economics proposal with the exception of The Economist.
Instead, I get Bittergate, sniper fire, and God damn America.
Hillary's interest rate freeze proposal is just as uninformed and pandering as her initial vote in favor of the Iraq War. Salon, why aren't you tackling this?!?! Instead of giving us more of the nonsense that everybody else is covering, why don't you give us the real issues that everybody else is ignoring?
-
Oops
[Read the article: Wrong on the substance and the style]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I stand corrected--The New Republic published a piece by Richard Thaler (of the U of C Graduate School of Business, but also an informal adviser to Obama) several months ago about her plan:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=fda159ff-46c4-4d1b-9a4b-7b628d9fb8d0
-
Oh, come on
[Read the article: Murtha tackles McCain's age]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Earlier today, I read Greenwald's piece about the powderpuff issues being covered in last night's debate.
Evidently, War Room hasn't read it yet.
A piece about a spat involving McCain's age? Come on.
War Room serves a much more important purpose when it emphasizes the real problems with McCain. This simply doesn't rise to that level.
-
Speaking of superdelegates
[Read the article: Burden on superdelegates gets even heavier]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]. . . Obama picked up another one last night: Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry.