Over the weekend, letter writers to The Times argued all sides of the healthcare law that the Supreme Court will take up this week, the L.A. Memorial Coliseum scandal and the too-late L.A. City Council vote on Wal-Mart’s planned store in Chinatown.

On one story, though -- former Vice President Dick Cheney’s new heart -- there was near-universal and rapid one-liner-type agreement.

      Times staff writer Dalina Castellanos  reported:  “Former Vice President Dick Cheney had a heart transplant Saturday morning after waiting more than 20 months on a transplant list, his office reported.  Cheney, 71, … has battled a lifetime of heart disease.”

Ralph Brax of Lancaster was quick to observe:

Dick Cheney gets a heart transplant and taxpayers pay for it. This occurs several days before the Supreme Court takes on the case of national health care. The prosecution rests.

Chimed in Tim Viselli of La Canada Flintridge:

After many transplants, the body will reject an incompatible heart. This may be the first time where the heart rejects an incompatible body.

Andrew Rubin of Malibu added:  

Seeing the headline that Cheney had received a heart transplant, I could not help but think, "Better ten years late than never."

Patricia Coelho of South Pasadena echoed several others when she  wondered:

Does this mean that Dick Cheney will finally have a heart?

Clearly not a fan, Steve Wollenberg of Los Angeles asked:

Dick Cheney had a heart transplant?  Really?  Did anyone toss in a brain?  They usually, but not always, come as a set.

And finally, from Phoenix, Ernie Haas emailed a wish:

Just heard that ex-Vice President Dick Cheney had a change of heart.  Maybe now he'll become a Democrat.

       The Times story didn’t address political affiliations, noting only that “about 88% of patients survive the first year after transplant surgery” and that, according to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, the  “number of active waiting-list candidates -- those eligible to receive organs at any given time -- was 72,855 for all organs as of Saturday.”

 ALSO:

Letters to the editor

Letters on letters -- on healthcare reform

--Sara Lessley

Photo: Former Vice President Dick Cheney. Credit: Saul Loeb / AFP/Getty Images

On the second anniversary of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. “Obamacare,” health reform continues to provoke heated debate among our letter writers.

Sometimes, it’s not the stories but the letters themselves that prompt an outcry.

On March 23, The Times published several letters responding to the March 21 story, “Obama’s health reform law still a hard sell.”

Times staff writer Noam Levey wrote:

As President Obama and his allies gear up to defend the landmark healthcare law he signed two years ago, they confront an unforgiving math problem: Just a tiny fraction of Americans has experienced a major benefit from the law.

Levey cited one of the law’s “early benefits” for that fraction of Americans -- allowing adult children to remain on their parents’ health plans until age 26.

But not everyone agreed on calling that a “benefit.”

Reader David Goodwin of Los Angeles said in his Friday letter:

There are no “adult children,” only adults who act or are treated like children.  There are progeny, offspring, and “my kids.”  Your son maybe 24, but he is not a child, I hope.

“Obamacare” and the nanny state treat people like children.  They can drink, drive and vote, but are not responsible enough to pay their way, although that’s the least-expensive age bracket for buying insurance.

His view, however, didn’t sit well with those who favor the reform law.

A few hours later, by email, Laura Jaoui of Claremont shot back:

Please enlighten the public like your letter writer who think  that “covering adult children costs someone or something. Nothing is free.” Indeed, parents of adult children (students often) like me are delighted to pay for keeping their kids on their health plan until the age of 26. Nothing is free.... And before the Affordable Care Act, parents weren't allowed to keep their kids on the plans no matter how much we would willingly pay! Your letter writer should thank “Obamacare” that he will no longer have to pay for these young peoples' healthcare!

Karen Dauphin of Agoura Hills also weighed in:

The letter writer who criticized the Affordable Care Act for extending coverage of adult children was way off base. He … implied that those making use of this provision were just leeches and slackers. The people affected by this law are those like the daughter with lymphoma in another letter -- people whose health history, even at that young age, would make insurance prohibitively expensive, if  obtainable at all. Perhaps he feels that they should simply die and "decrease the surplus population.”

Not everyone was offended, though.

James Webster of Santa Barbara offered his take on Goodwin’s letter:

I enjoy glancing through the “political” letters you publish looking for that proverbial needle in a haystack.  This morning I found one.  What a great feeling it was to read a letter that didn't make my eyes roll and wonder what this world is coming to!

The Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on some aspects of the healthcare reform law next week.  And, of course, it will be a major point of contention in this fall’s election.

Expect The Times to cover all of that extensively, which will undoubtedly generate more letters, pro and con -- and more letters on the letters.

RELATED: 

No Rx for Medicare 

'Obamacare' and the rationing myth

Supreme Court should lift its blackout

--Sara Lessley

Photo: Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) rips a page from the text of the 2010 healthcare reform bill as he stands in front of the Capitol. Credit: Win McNamee / Getty Images

Mary Strickler, a high school teacher in Harrisonburg, Va., addresses the media backlash over the viral video “Kony 2012.” If you would like to write a full-length response to a recent Times article, editorial or op-ed and would like to participate in Blowback, here are our FAQs and submission policy.

A few days ago the 29-minute video “Kony 2012” went viral with more than 80 million views. Since then members of the free press and bloggers have done their best to blacken the name of three filmmakers and I want to brood about the affair.

As a teacher, I thought it was refreshing to view student activism at the grass roots level this week. In history class, teens were brought to tears after viewing the “Kony” documentary. All week long, young people flooded my room to discuss their reaction to the film. They ordered $30 Kony kits, planned to plaster the city with Kony posters on April 20, the designated day slated in the film, and filled up Facebook sites with poignant discussions of child abuse in Third World countries. The power of the film moved kids to put down their cellphones or video controllers and take up collections to help others in need. It was gratifying to see young people excited and motivated to get involved.

Then, along came the naysayers as cited in the March 10 article by James Rainey. Prominent journalists criticized the Kony movement, especially a photograph of the filmmakers holding guns with the LRA and questioned the amount of donations that actually went toward the cause, ultimately dissuading people from contributing.

Now, it’s only human nature to complain about the state of worldly affairs. I get that and if it happens to sell a few extra papers, so much the better. However, to criticize something so important as saving the lives of children is unconscionable. These three men from San Diego have left the safety of their own homes, fought tirelessly for five years living halfway around the world in unsavory places to bring us the truth. How can anyone have the nerve to question their propriety? Really. Moving films that get airtime on all major networks cost real money to make…or haven’t you heard?

My son, Ty Strickler (USC alum ’10), is currently in a remote village called Cura in Kenya shooting a documentary about the needs of children who live in an orphanage because they have lost their parents to AIDS. It took Ty almost a year to raise the money to go. Rather than simply making a charitable donation, Ty took it upon himself to travel halfway around the world to film in a dangerous area because he knows that his documentary might move others to action. I seriously hope you don’t accuse him of misappropriation of funds because he took his first trip abroad on someone else’s dime. Rather than criticizing people who want to make a difference, you should commend those who get off the couch and do something to make the world a little better for people they don’t even know.

If you want a story about corruption, look no further than our own government. The interest alone on Ty’s college loans are more than he makes in a month. The government consolidation agency, which charges 8% interest, informed Ty that after he makes 30 years of regular monthly payments that will not even touch the principle, the IRS will "step in" and he could see real jail time. Now there’s a travesty of justice; write about that but leave the filmmakers alone.

We all agree that a journalist has an obligation to tell the truth; however, a journalist also has an obligation to cover all sides of the story. Travel with the filmmakers to Uganda, read my son’s blog while he’s in Kenya at tystrickler.blogspot.com, see the good works of people who work tirelessly in the trenches at curaorphanage.org before you put pen to paper next time. 

Don’t squelch young activists like my son or my student, Thomas Abebe, who took it upon himself to raise money for famine relief around the Horn of Africa by selling rubber bracelets to his fellow classmates. Did I ask him for an accounting of funds? No, I just thanked God that someone cared enough to get involved. He gets an A+ in my book!

Just remember -- journalists have the power to inspire too. More people need to be inspired like these young filmmakers, who have the crazy notion that they can change the world by using film, social media and most importantly, their talents.

There are two types of people in the world, ones who are the doers and the ones who sit around and criticize them for it. Which one are you?

ALSO:

To catch a Kony, cash won't cut it

PHOTOS: The cruelty of Kony's army

VIDEO:Kony 2012 targets Uganda militia leader

 --Mary Strickler

Top photo: The Invisible Children Movement office in San Diego. Credit: John Mone / AP Photo

Bottom photo: Ty Strickler in Kenya. Credit: Photo provided by Mary Strickler

Author Elizabeth Wurtzel -- of "Prozac Nation" fame -- argues in a June episode of "Studio 360," which re-aired a couple weeks ago, for preserving the integrity of intellectual property. "Our GDP is now 47% intellectual property," she told host Kurt Andersen. Distributing artists' work free of charge not only threatens the existence of art and creativity, it also threatens a substantial part of our economy.

Rather than view the Internet as an environment that cannibalizes artists' work, some musicians such as Jay-Z have flipped the traditional music industry model on its head. Instead of relying on record sales for the bulk of their income, they use their albums as a marketing tool to get fans to buy concert tickets and merch. The easier their music is to access online, the better the promotion.

Many of the musicians I know don't mind this new model; some even prefer it. They post their new music on social networks, actively inviting fans to listen for free, banking on those listeners to help build buzz. Why wouldn't you adapt, they ask? There's been a similar shift in other creative fields too, with writers, photographers and designers, to name a few, using their personal sites to promote their work in hopes of spreading the word and getting hired.

That's crazy, says Wurtzel. "This is hard work," she told Andersen. "This isn't something people should be giving away for free." It devalues the product. For a "creatocracy" to work, she says:

Wurtzel: [W]e have the only Constitution that has intellectual property in it. […] I think the thing that [the Founding Fathers] did that was unique is that they didn't set up a minister of the arts; they set up a copyright system. They said you could profit from your creativity, they would not support it, there would not be patrons, there would not be the European system.

Andersen: Other countries have copyrights and patents. What makes our version of it special?

Wurtzel: I think that the government pretty much threw it all to the free market. […] They invented the concept of an audience supporting the arts as opposed to patrons of some other method.

Within the world of music, it would seem as though music-streaming subscription services would bridge the gap. Spotify, which is like Netflix for music, for instance, preserves intellectual property; artists get royalties and promotion; and fans get easy, immediate and inexpensive access to just about anything they want to listen to.

If only it were that simple. The editorial board recently took on this topic, writing:

To some labels and artists, the subscription services are little better than piracy. The royalties are minuscule -- about half a penny per song played on Spotify -- and the way they're calculated is maddeningly hard to understand. […]

For better or worse, the Internet makes music instantly available to anyone who wants to hear it. Many of the sources aren't legal, but they're free and easy to find. As a result, broadband has effectively ended the era when people had to buy an album to find out how good every track was (or wasn't). Consumers expect to be able to hear a recording before committing it to their collection. The challenge for artists and labels is to persuade potential fans to do so on legitimate, royalty-paying sites. At the same time, they have to find ways to introduce themselves to new generations of listeners. That means having a presence on the sites that millions of those listeners use, rather than trying to coax them to places chosen by the artist.

As a commenter, WaltMcKibben, writes on our discussion board, "an artist who can cross all the technological borders will define the century."

ALSO:

Why Chris Brown is no role model

Protest songs: Record labels aren't listening

Academy Awards: It's about art, not political correctness

--Alexandra Le Tellier

Photo: Jay-Z performs during a concert at Staples Center on March 26, 2011. Credit: Los Angeles Times

There are those who argue that America just doesn't produce the quality of political leadership it once did.

I've never bought that argument.  But I am beginning to wonder.

How else to explain a Presidents Day Gallup poll that found that, among the last eight commanders in chief, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were the most celebrated:

Sixty-nine percent said Reagan would go down as "outstanding" or "above average," compared to just 10% who said "below average" or "poor." Clinton was rated favorably by 60% of those surveyed, a 10-point improvement from the last time Gallup asked the question in early 2009. Twelve percent rated him negatively, down from 20% three years ago.

Admittedly, the bar the last eight presidents set wasn't very high.  There's Richard Nixon -- enough said.  His successor, Gerald R. Ford, was in effect appointed. Jimmy Carter is seemingly everyone's favorite whipping boy.  And George H.W. Bush, the hero of Kuwait, fell victim to an unheroic economy, while his son, George, fell victim to Dick Cheney's hubris.

Reagan, of course, is a god among Republicans today, but Gallup found that even 47% of Democrats said he will be viewed positively in U.S. history.

And what did Reagan and Clinton do to earn such favorable ratings?  The poll doesn't answer that. 

But here's what respondents apparently overlooked:

For Reagan, there's the Iran-contra affair.  The one in which his administration secretly sold missiles to Iran (yes, that Iran), breaking a U.S. arms embargo.  It used that money to buy arms for U.S.-backed rebels in Nicaragua, breaking another U.S. law, this one forbidding the arming of those anti-government rebels.

But hey, you can't make an anti-communist omelet if you don't break a few laws, right?

And then there's Clinton, he of the impeachment.  Yes,  as in "one of only two presidents ever to be" -- the other being Andrew Johnson, who isn't on anyone’s list of top presidents.

However, Americans have apparently decided that they prefer the hanky-panky president who lied ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman") but brought them a booming economy, to his successor, who only lied about the war in Iraq and brought them a fiscal train wreck.

Of course, it's risky predicting how history will view presidents.

But before it was Presidents Day, it was George Washington's birthday -- for a reason. And I think history's verdict is clear on Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Now our generation has given the nation the Gipper and the Man from Hope.

The  best and the brightest, huh?

ALSO:

Bursting the GOP's housing bubble nonsense

Kinsley: For president, no experience needed

Issa's House hearings on contraception: Where were the women?

-- Paul Whitefield

Photo: Ronald Reagan with Bill Clinton in November 1992. Credit: Paul Richards / AFP

A recent Op-Ed by NYU professor Jonanthan Zimmerman asked: "Are college students learning?"  He wrote that "the big open secret in American higher education: Most institutions have no meaningful way to measure the quality of their instruction." Zimmerman's commentary was a response to President Obama's State of the Union address in which he called on colleges to do "better" and proposed measures to lower tuition. But, Zimmerman asks, what did Obama mean by "better"?

[I] have a modest proposal for Obama: In addition to asking universities to lower tuition, ask them also to figure out what their students are learning. Some schools are already doing that. At Carleton College in Minnesota, for example, students are required to submit a set of papers that they wrote during their first two years at the school. Carleton then assesses each student according to a set of faculty-developed standards, and also provides assistance to the students who do not meet them.

On the occasion of Zimmerman's piece, readers have been commenting all week, mostly that attending college is a gigantic and costly waste of time. At least it is in our country, where students tend to favor liberal arts over math, science or anything that will keep our country competitive. (Their words, not mine.) Here's a sampling of their comments from our discussion board.

Stop subsidizing an easy-going culture

Those pursuing engineering, hard sciences, and other math-based degrees are learning.

The rest of the brats with ______ Studies majors are just burning through their parents' money while watching Jon Stewart and learning nothing beyond how to prepare for a life of professional victimhood and perpetual grievances.  Call it six-figure day care.

Here's a thought:  end all aid for fake majors.  I don't agree with taxpayers being forced to subsidize anyone's schooling, but if we must, at least limit it to B.S. degrees so we'll get some output from it.

--jaguar7171

Don't support "soft" degrees

American colleges/universities in general DWELL too much on progressive ideology. They neglect the STEM disciplines...because all the Asian (overseas, not Asian Americans), E Indian, and the few "nerdy" American students...who can handle them, pursue them. Watch what happens in 5, 10 or 20 years. America ain't gonna have headlines like, "first man to land on moon; breakthrough in cancer treatment; blind are given second chance to see again because of American researchers..."

Keep on dwelling on the soft degrees that got no pragmatism.

--edkrunk

Get rid of general education

I obtained a BS degree in Engineering from a British university 30 years ago. From day one until finals we studied nothing but subjects that were essential to an understanding and practice of engineering. We didn't study anything that would be considered 'general education'. We graduated after 3 years, not 4.

It takes 3 years to get a BS in engineering (or pretty much anything else) if you leave out the fluff that is GE. If you want to broaden your studies, read a book. GE is by definition irrelevant to the major.

I am now paying for my 2 kids to attend college (UCLA). Most of what they study in the first year, and some of the second, in my opinion isn't worth my money or their time. They don't care, but I do as I'm paying for it.

So my suggestion is that US colleges could not only cut student costs but reduce time taken to get a BS degree by taking a huge ax to the GE requirements they currently require.

--psb962

Stop fostering a party

The real problem lies with the students. You can feel the frustration of teaching if you liken the teacher to a faucet of information, trying to fill a bucket with a hole in it. The student must be motivated to learn in order to learn. You can invest in the most expensive new technology from smart boards to computer classrooms. You can recruit the brightest and best teachers. It will not make one wit of difference if the students are not motivated to learn the material being taught. So how does one create a culture on campus where the student feels compelled to learn? That is the key question. Unfortunately, most colleges focus on recruiting and retaining tuition-paying seat fillers by making campus 'fun', filling the day with delightful distractions; cable TV, games, events, Greek houses, all sorts of extracurricular activities which many students take more seriously than their studies ... no wonder the student sees their studies as the distraction.

--A thousand clowns

Hold colleges accountable

Want to stop the "Great American College Rip-Off"? Maybe parents (and/or the students) should sue the colleges for not teaching them marketable skills and getting employment when they graduate college. If a student doesn't have a meaningful well-paying job by at least 3-5 years out of college, then the college failed by defrauding the student out of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars. It is theft by deception. The college(s) should be on the hook legally if they are forcing students to expend hundreds of thousands in student loans and then provide no avenue to pay back those loans. The parents and/or students would then have a right to sue for false advertising, fraud and the like.

--Dadzrites

*For clarity purposes, spelling errors in the above comments have been corrected. 

ALSO:

America's waning influence

School nutrition: A kid's right to choose

Super Bowl: The right way to combat big-game pirates

--Alexandra Le Tellier

Illustration: Michael Osbun / Tribune Media Services

My column on Monday looking at a proposed change in the way the Los Angeles Police Department handles cars it seizes from unlicensed drivers drew the predictable response: Scores of readers wrote to complain that this is just another misguided attempt to make life easier for illegal immigrants, while a smaller number wrote to praise the idea as a moderate way to handle an overbearing and unjust system that deprives those immigrants and others of their vehicles for relatively minor traffic violations.

First, I should note that my larger point was not the policy itself but rather the question of what it says about who makes policy for the LAPD. It's my view that these proposed changes represent a change in policy and that the Police Commission, not Chief Charlie Beck, should therefore make them. That said, the proposal that the chief has advanced is one I agree with, despite the objections of some readers.

Take "divewizard," who wrote: "Anyone driving without a license should be arrested and the car impounded." That's true, but it avoids the question. The real question is this: Should everyone who drives without a license lose their car for 30 days, or should there be different standards depending on the offense? If the unlicensed driver also is uninsured or has been in an accident or is charged with a serious offense (driving drunk, for instance), that driver would continue to lose the car for 30 days under the chief's proposal. But if the driver carried insurance (yes, it's possible to get insurance without a California license) and was merely pulled over for speeding, shouldn't that be treated differently? Under Beck's suggestion, such drivers would have their car impounded but could pick it up the following day if they arrived with a licensed driver.

Similarly, "mypapa" argues that Beck's job is to enforce the law, and that because it's illegal to drive without a license, Beck should make sure his officers enforce the law. Simple, indeed, but Beck's broader responsibility is to protect public safety. The effect of seizing cars for 30 days for even trivial offenses is that it encourages those without licenses to drive inexpensive cars and discourages them from registering them or obtaining insurance, because they will simply walk away if the car is seized and they can't afford to get it back. Los Angeles would be safer if more cars were registered, insured and well maintained. And since Beck's job is to look after that safety, I think he's right to pursue this policy. I still think the commission should have the last word, though, and I respectfully disagree with Beck on that issue.

Finally, to the reader who argued that I was incorrect that the council can't override the chief, it's the reader who's incorrect. The council has the power to take over any action by a commission and veto it if 10 council members support that veto -- that's one reason supporters of this policy prefer not to have the commission act. The chief, on the other hand, does not report to the council, and it has no power to review his changes in LAPD procedure.

ALSO:

L.A.'s wasteful sprinklers

GOP candidates' immigration fantasies

The energy industry's disturbing influence on politics

--Jim Newton

Photo: Los Angeles Police Department Chief Charlie Beck. Credit: Los Angeles Times

Is it fair to mandate to food stamp recipients what they can and can't eat? Sen. Ronda Storms (R-Fla.) thinks so, which is why she authored a bill that imposes restrictions on what people can buy with federal aid. Times reporter Richard Fausset writes:

A few months ago, Storms, 46, started noticing that some fellow shoppers were using federal food stamp money to purchase a lot of unhealthful junk. And it galled her -- at a time when Florida was cutting Medicaid reimbursement rates, public school funding and jobs -- that people were indulging in sugary, fatty, highly-processed treats on the public dime.

Naturally, Storms' bill hit a nerve.

In an editorial, our board writes:

The list in Storms' bill is so long -- foods containing trans fats, sweetened beverages, "sweets" from jello to doughnuts, and "salty snacks" -- that it seems to include most items not found in the produce or meat aisles. The notion that poor people have any more time to cook from scratch than other Americans who rely on prepared supermarket "junk" food is clearly absurd, and infantilizing them by restricting their choices in this way is demeaning. […]

The best way to prevent people from making bad food choices is to give them proper nutritional information. But for the government to reach into their supermarket carts is downright -- dare we say it? -- socialistic.

On our discussion board, several readers complain that beggars can't be choosers. "When you eat on someone else's dime you eat what's provided and say thanks rather than whine about how oppressed you are," writes David in LA. Furthermore, argues kroneborge, "I strongly support the right of people to make unhealthy decisions, they should be able to smoke, eat and do whatever drugs they want as long as they pay for it and their healthcare themselves. But if I am paying for it, then they need to be living right."

Question is, who determines what it means to be "living right"? It could also be argued that obesity and diabetes aren't the only health risks associated with our food consumption. If you're going to go about banning risky foods, why not put the kibosh on Florida tomatoes too? And microwaveable popcorn? Or milk, poultry and red meat? Or food that comes in cans? Most people know that chips are bad for you, but I doubt there are a lot of people out there who've ever considered that a can of chicken soup could be toxic.

That's all beside the point, though. "The point of the food stamp program is to stop vulnerable Americans from going hungry, not to impose some sort of national dietary regime," writes Elizabeth Nolan Brown on Blisstree. "And while it may seem more helpful (in a sort-of paternalistic way) to limit what folks on food stamps can buy to certain healthy or cost-efficient foods, what good does that do anyone if those foods aren't things a food stamp user will actually eat?"

ALSO:

Should consumers boycott Apple?

Newton: LAPD's impound dilemma

Goldberg: Political finger-pointing

--Alexandra Le Tellier

Photo: La Casa Market in East Los Angeles. Credit: Los Angeles Times

Newt Gingrich's victory in Saturday's South Carolina primary gave the Republican candidate the opportunity to stand at the podium and spin a little fiction about how he's a Washington outsider.

"There's nothing new or particularly original about a candidate seeking to distance himself from the East Coast establishment," writes the editorial board in "Gingrich's 'outsider' gambit." "But it's particularly rich to have Gingrich attempt to position himself as an outsider." They continue:

Gingrich served 10 terms in Congress and was speaker of the House from 1995 to 1999. In that post, he was two heartbeats from the presidency, and he was the galvanizing force of the GOP's return to power. In other words, he was near the pinnacle of the rarefied Washington elite. As for the "New York" half of his sneering denunciation — a reference to the media he's been lambasting for weeks — it is worth recalling that Gingrich is a prolific book writer who once received a $4.5-million advance, which he was forced to return after ethics questions were raised about it. And need one even mention that he has made his fortune in Washington (he earned $1.6 million, for instance, giving "strategic advice" to Freddie Mac, the quasi-governmental mortgage giant) or that he and his wife maintained a credit line at Tiffany? Surely that qualifies as admission to some sort of elite.

Here's what readers are saying on our discussion board.

What do Gingrich and Bristol Palin have in common?

Listening to Gingrich rebrand himself as the authentic outsider is like listening to advice on teenage abstinence from Bristol Palin -- as she holds her baby.

--Archibald

What's wrong with Gingrich? Here's a list:

The right-wing nuts' talent for self-deception is astonishing. The Newt is one of the most deeply dishonest and immoral major candidates this country has seen, not to mention his hypocrisy and radical extremism.

--Navydad

Is Gingrich all that different from other politicians?

Gingrich can say anything he wants, all U.S. politicians have established that the truth is optional.

--michael14

The rest of America is smarter than South Carolina, right?

If it weren't for the frightening possibility that Gingrich might actually become president, his astonishing hubris and hypocrisy would merely be entertaining.

Alas, his "I'm an outsider" shape-shifting is an old and tried Gingrich trick that's working once again.

Before he was an "elite" and then an "anti-elite," Gingrich successfully used deferments to avoid the Vietnam War era draft -- at 19 he married his 26-year-old high school teacher no less.

Then with no military street cred whatsoever, Gingrich went on to teach an officer war fighting course for the U.S. Air Force. He also served as an informal advisor to then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Talk about big ego, no shame.

So pretending to be what he isn't, dodging, weaving, obfuscating and attacking are standard operating procedures for this hypocrite.

Please, somebody tell me the American electorate is smart enough to see through this guy.

-- CarolineR2

If Gingrich is the nominee…

If Gingrich is the nominee, Romney and Paul should run as a third party ticket ... or maybe both as separate tickets.  I have been a Republican since 1976 and under no circumstances will I vote for that hypocrite Gingrich or the nut-case Santorum.  Romney should be the nominee. Period.

--bill1745

*For clarity purposes, spelling errors in the above comments have been corrected.

RELATED:

McManus: Is Romney a true conservative?

A Newt seduced South Carolina's Christian electorate

Gingrich's best value among 'values voters'? Beating Obama

--Alexandra Le Tellier

Photo: Newt Gingrich speaks to supporters at the Hilton Hotel in Columbia, S.C., following his victory in the South Carolina Republican presidential primary on Jan. 21. Credit: Jeff Siner / Charlotte Observer/MCT

Readers of my column know I'm fascinated by the basic, eternal comment-board questions: "Why are people so mean?"  "Is vitriolic spewing on the Web just another sign of the apocalypse?"  

Of course, plenty of others are just as interested in the way "instant response" (you know, typing fast and then clicking a mouse, rather than getting a pen, finding the paper, writing a letter, sticking it in the U.S. mail) has changed the nature of reading, writing and just being a person.

I heard from some of them last week via Patt Morrison's KPCC radio show. I was on it because I wrote a 5,000+-word essay, "Haterade" -- about the vituperative nature of certain forms of online interactivity --  for the January issue of the Believer magazine (which, by the way, doesn't allow for comments on its website).  Cheryl Cox in Woodland Hills posted this on Patt's KPCC page, "With all due respect to you authors, I learn as much from the discussion that follows an article as from the article itself."  Ryan Johnson  said,  "I'm horrified by the hate that people freely express" and added that "genuine discussion rarely happens in a comments section." Meanwhile, "Eleanor in Los Feliz" wrote that she appreciated the "meta" aspect of "comment-conversing on a story about comment-conversing."  Me too. 

Offline, lots of people  have told me they would like to take part in online discussions but that the ugly rantings of the few too often drown out the good intentions of the many, and it ultimately doesn't seem worth the trouble. Others pine for the days, pre-blogosphere, when conversations about political and cultural issues generally took place in person among friends or colleagues who knew how to combine vehement disagreement with respectful listening. Meanwhile, many young people, some of them fledgling writers, admit they sometimes censor their most original, daring ideas out of fear of the "haterade." 

No one wants to throw the baby out with the bathwater, not that we could  at this stage in digital history. As we learned last year, the anonymity of the Web can help topple dictators, but there's no foolproof way to prevent people from also using that cover to air their most venomous, gratuitous grievances in a manner they wouldn't think of doing in real life. Even comment-by-comment monitoring doesn't help much. It's impractical, and besides, whose standard should prevail; where do you draw the line?  

At The Times, comments on some blogs are implemented through Facebook, which may engender more civility than utterly anonymous threads. But is it fair to force people to join Facebook if they want to post a comment? (Personally, I think not.) Moreover, if someone is determined to spew invective while hiding behind a false identity, don't The Times' Facebook comments prove it's  pretty easy to do?  (Not to give you guys any ideas. ) 

If  you think you have the key to civil discourse, by all means let us know.  Meanwhile, read the piece, if for no other reason than to snicker over the embarrassing opening anecdote, which describes an ill-conceived, messily argued and (rightfully) lambasted (without benefit of comment boards) article I published in the mid-1990s when I was a fledgling kulturkritic/opinionator/navel gazer. No doubt my loyal haters will appreciate the opportunity to make up for the online pummeling I dodged back then.

Oh, and here's a comment footnote:  What's the real derivation of "haterade"?  I always thought it was coined by young, snarky blogger types, but I'm hearing that it is actually a hip-hop expression (the Urban Dictionary’s first entry calls it "a figurative drink representing a modality or thought" and doesn't mention hip hop). So if you know the answer, please speak up. Just try not to use all caps if you can help it.

RELATED:

Daum: Mitt Romney's dog days

Daum: Think first tweet later #duh

Daum: Christopher Hitchens gets the last laugh

--Meghan Daum

Photo credit: Christina House / For The Times