Letters to the Editor
-
Fairer Grounds
It's a little like overhearing somebody talking at the next table. The myth of Ivins is being made before our eyes.
Only, again, yes, again, I have to say I am shocked at the shallowness of the discussion about Hillary. Understand: I have no brief beyond common reckoning towards her.
THERE IS STILL THE FIXATION ON HER WAR VOTE! I don't get it. The first women runs for president and all literate woman can say about her is she voted for Bush's war at a time when she had been lied too. I thought women were sympathic toward each other when they are lied too?
Hello, hello, is anybody listening? Where is the obvious argument that as a woman she is not going to be allowed to make many mistakes in terms of positions that appeal to as many voters as possible. What about the fact that she is really in this thing to win?
WHEN ARE MORE SUPPOSED LIBERALS GOING TO TAKE HER CANDIDACY SERIOUSLY ENOUGH TO APPLY THEIR MINDS TO THE SITUATION, INSTEAD OF THIS KNEE-JERK ABOUT THE WAR? WHY WAIT UNTIL IT IS TOO LATE?
She is going to go for the center and that is going to piss off the fringes. If you really reject her, why not at least do so on fairer grounds?
-
Joan Walsh
Joan, thank you for writing about your interview with Annie. I always enjoy reading what she says, whether in her books or in a column. It is obvious that you know Annie well and your love and friendship come through very clearly. I prefer these types of columns to vituperative ones by other people.
Linda
-
i reread your post, 4-evuh fka
maybe an idea there. there could be a letters to the writer section where the writer could talk back. now writers are timid creatures, they couldn't take the rough and tumble of life on the boards. so maybe they would only answer *certain* (very well mannered) posts. on the other hand they could have a notepad full of curses and blessings and cut and paste them. nah! they wouldn't do that. a *paid* writer is a rare thing. what if they insulted (or worse, bored) an important constituency? after all, they can't use a pseudonym. i think, in the end, that Salon doesn't want to mess with a good thing. they, after all, are not *paying* us. but we get others (ok, *some* of us get others) to see those ads.
-
Bravo pacificwhim
Well put. Anne, you are lovely.
-
Grace and compassion
Grace and compassion are the things that I find missing in a lot of situations through life. When I was at UCSF in December, wondering if I'd survive the aftermath of thoracic surgery, I finally realized that I might not get old after all. What a strange idea/feeling. Going through that gave me the insight that I will be ok whether I get old or not. Hearing about Annie spending time with Molly Ivins is like a continuation on my thoughts that began when my Mom died too young. Thank you for the insights and stirring up memories. Linda
-
Ben Sen
I love Molly Ivans, but I love your point too. Thanks for making it.
I've always wondered the same about Hillary too. Women, particularly powerful women who aren't "nice" all the time, are still targets in our society.
Last week, a guy actually announced at a local public meeting that he'd burn a Rosie O'Donnell doll he was holding in effigy. Now Rosie is no Hillary, but rage against both seems to stem from the same urge.
I haven’t read all of the letters that pass through Salon, but I wonder about certain patterns. Oprah, Camille Paglia, Joan Walsh and Anne Lamott have one thing in common. I will sound very P.C. saying this (as Bill O’Reilly would be the first to note) but do we just find it easier to bash women?
This is not a male problem: the women in the local audience cheered at the idea of burning Rosie. Last week I was consumed with anger at Paglia. Now, I’d argue she’s a woman who also tends to critique women – and she certainly was not pleasant to Hillary in her article. But that maybe part of why she’s popular. She gives us permission to do what we want to do.
We’re all being manipulated, is my guess. We think that just because some ideas get out in the real world – that women are equal, that racism is wrong, that the corporations have too much power, etc. – that this means such ideas actually have a real impact on the world. We think that everything has changed. Indeed, we say women have too much power, African Americans discriminate against whites, FOX really must be fair and balanced.
Nothing has changed. The rhetoric has just gotten more effective.
Joan Walsh: I’m a little worried for you. You have dared to put your face out there as editor of Salon and as a woman. (And you get manicures! How could you!)
As an editor we must critique you; you’re going to make mistakes and get us angry. You’ve made many decisions that have infuriated me. But I can’t help but wonder if the rhetoric in these letters won’t be just a little more pungent now that we can see the woman behind the curtain.
-
So easy to ignore the vitriol...
I occasionally scan the letters on Salon, and it's always the same three or four morons spewing their verbose, moronic bile.
I like Annie, always have. I liked this interview. As a mother, I have deeply appreciated her writing on parenting. I am an athiest, but I have very much enjoyed her explorations of her own faith.
Annie, if you are compelled to click the button, I hope you see this. There are far fewer haters out there than it may seem. They just have a lot of pseudonyms and WAY too much time on their hands.
Keep it up.
-
I have a question for Joan
Are you the reason why Salon is the ONLY media publication that has not mentioned the current censorship case before the Supreme Court?
Should we take this very bizarre silence from your publication as a sign that you actually SUPPORT Ken Starr?
Every single major media publication has covered the Bong Hits 4 Jesus case. It's the first time an American conservative has sought to ban completely ambiguous speech. The Washington Post even has an editorial on the case.
Salon is the only publication that is pretending it's not happening.
Okay, so you people are not alarmed that the neocons are trying to ban ambiguous speech.
Fine - that's your choice. I hope you're willing to take responsibility for your pro-censorship choice later on.