Letters to the Editor
buckjarret
Published Letters: 8
-
lawyers' production
[Read the article: Do childless women make the most productive lawyers?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Being "productive" as a lawyer means getting clients to pay for as many hours of your work as possible. Lawyers in firms work for and are paid by the partnership, not the clientele.
-
nothing wrong with cat/dog consumption
[Read the article: An Olympic disgrace]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Other cultures have the right to consume whatever common animal species they find convenient. Pigs are smarter than cats and dogs anyway. There are more important issues to worry about.
-
not an ethical issue
[Read the article: My boyfriend won't give me his apartment key]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It isn't an ethical or moral issue that the boyfriend won't give her the key. Maybe he doesn't trust her enough. Maybe he wants to keep her at a certain distance. He has the right to live alone. She just has to decide whether she will live with it, wait for him to change, or dump him now. That is her personal decision; what is in her best interests depends on her unique circumstances. No one can tell her what she should do and there is no right or wrong answer.
-
should not be independent academic department
[Read the article: Is women's studies dead?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't really see that Women's Studies, Queer Studies, etc., need to exist as full-fledged academic departments when they are not quite academic disciplines. Students who wish to concentrate on topics relevant to feminist interests should do so within real departments like economics, English, history, religion, etc.
-
animal rights -- silly construct
[Read the article: An Olympic disgrace]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Animals don't have rights. Domesticated animals basically were created by humans and exist as a resource to be exploited by humans. Bourgeois Americans use cats and dogs to fill an emotional void, since we no longer have other utilitarian uses for them. However, in most of the world, the majority of domestic animals are for food production. The Chinese are all about the exploitation of the resources available to them. They need to be, with their population. We as Americans have no right to judge what they eat. We aren't saints and neither are they.
-
my opinion on animal rights & China -- clarification
[Read the article: An Olympic disgrace]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Animals obviously don't possess the right to live. Lacking that, they have no other inherent rights. They essentially have the status of animate object.
People are born with rights. Chattels have the "rights" that their owners give them, if any, on a conditional basis.
I am against inhumane animal slaughter, but it is an issue for local regulation, not international law, and in my opinion, need not be addressed until human rights issues are rectified. Moreover, since animal slaughter in the US isn't always so humane and there is no essential distinction between different kinds of animal (pig vs. dog), how can we judge the Chinese for their cultural practices? This is both patronizing and petty.
-
case against cloth
[Read the article: Ask Pablo]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If I had a baby, I would definitely use disposable diapers because cloth diapers are more gross.