Letters to the Editor
larrfirr
Published Letters: 267 Editor's Choice: 34
-
Check your history
[Read the article: "Any attack on Iran will be good for the government"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am wondering if some of you were to young in 1979 to remember the actual events.
jeffrey writes:
"Not quite - the shah was dying - in fact, had Carter not agreed to offer medical aide, the hostages would never had been taken - and has America protected the royal family - like we had for many years, the revolution might've failed."
True, the hostage taking was set off when the US agreed to take the Shah in for medical care, but the revolution had already happened and the Shah's medical condition was not the cause of it. As to weather Carter's criticism of the Shah's human rights record was a factor that brought him down, it's just so much claptrap. The Shah was installed by the US and UK after they overthrew a democratically elected government so he was never very popular with his people.
Fanella writes:
"The shah's unpopularity was due to his liberalism. He wanted to reform the country and make people more western. He was duly punished for this. The people wanted to return to their religion, and they got what they wanted."
The Shah's unpopularity was due to the fact that he turned Iran into a police state. The revolution was originally backed by the liberal middle class. It as only later that the Islamic extremists took it over.
Fanella wrote:
"The shah targeted groups whom he thought might overthrow him, groups he thought were his enemies"
Well you could say the same thing about Saddam Hussein, or for that matter Joseph Stalin.
Fanella wrote:
"Liberals are committed to the notion that the US is the worst thing on earth"
This is a ridiculous and inflammatory statement. It's like saying conservatives are racists. I find it personally offensive and doesn't belong in place like this.
-
the cathoic term
[Read the article: Dear Pope Benedict, I am incensed]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Protestants call it a censer, when they mention it at all. For a Catholic it is called a thurible. You should know that before you go hell bent on a crusade to stop it.
-
First Step
[Read the article: Series wrap-up: "Will & Grace"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is true that Will & Grace was groundbreaking in that it was the first sucessful, highly rated comedy with gay characters. The reason it was so successful was that it was watered down so the audience was not too challenged with new things, and yes, the writing was very funny. Keep them laughing.
But Will and Grace were intimates in every way but sex. Will and Jack were seen kissing more women than men. Jack even had a son, and married a woman, not to mention some suggestive flirting with Karen. That's all not very gay behaviour.
I never saw myself in Will & Grace, or anyone I know. And frankly they seemed more like spoiled rich kids from Southern California than New Yorkers.
-
All the answers are there
[Read the article: My son, the stranger]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]All the answers to Anne's problems are right in the article. Mother and son are both going through a difficult time, and as another writer said, this is all about power. But you have to remember who is the adult here, and as an adult she has to have to wisdom to see the truth. The truth is rather unpleasant and what an adult does is learn to deal with it.
-
What's the big deal?
[Read the article: I can't stop picking my nose!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I just can't believe Cary used all that prose to say something you could say in four words -- Do it in private.
-
Laughable?
[Read the article: The gay boogeyman's gonna git ya!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I did not find this video laughable at all. Having been a boy becoming aware of my homosexuality at the time, this was precisely the kind of propaganda that gave me nightmares and made me distrust my own feelings. This is not so different from racist and anti-semitic propaganda of years past.
-
The point of the article
[Read the article: Who's afraid of the big bad gay marriage amendment?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think in the discussion here about gay marriage, the whole point of the article has been overlooked. Will this move score points for the Republicans in the upcoming election? The fact that this amendement isn't going to pass the senate does not discount that possibility. A defeat can garner more support than a victory at times (we remember the Alamo, Pearl Harbor and Sept 11). I don't think Scherer made a good case that this won't help the Repulicans in 2006 and I wish this issue was explored more in depth.
But as long as we're on the gay marriage issue, I'd like to say the arguments in support have taken the wrong tack. They should pay attention to the strategy the opponents have been using. The arguments in favor have been abstract and philosophical, an appeal to our sense of equality before the law. The opponents have been talking about tangible harm that would be done. We know these arguments have no basis in fact, but my point is that a certain number of people believe these things could happen. What the pro-gay marriage camp needs to do is show exactly how people are being harmed by this unfair treatment, how it actually does harm couples and the children of gay parents.
-
What's the word?
[Read the article: State of the union]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I originally would agree that Civil Union is fine, if it matches the legal status of marriage and simply uses a different word. That was, until I had one myself. The problem becomes apparent when you need to talk about it and there are no words. Heterosexuals are "married" have a "Husband/Wife/Spouse". There are no equivalent words for same sex unions. "Partner" does not specifically refer to a legal union. I recently filled out an insurance form and it said "relationship", now since I can't say spouse I don't have much to go by if they refuse to cover him as they would a spouse. It will be an uphill battle as gay couples joined in civil unions insist on their rights, and the fact that it is not "marriage" gives people a chance to discriminate.