Letters to the Editor
softdog
Published Letters: 239 Editor's Choice: 10
-
A big double standard
[Read the article: McCain campaign baits Obama on Clinton slurs]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm tired of Joan holding Obama responsible for statements made by people he doesn't control and may not have even sought - i.e. Kennedy - as if this was the same as statements made by people actually working for Clinton, like Geraldine Ferraro.
Obama has rebuffed multiple people he did not permit to speak for him and made the one who was working for him resign and apologize. Clinton has remained near silent about Ferraro and others.
But also, what Joe Buck said:
It's offensive and misogynist to compare Hillary Clinton to Glenn Close's "Fatal Attraction" character, and this kind of thing should be condemned.
But Ted Kennedy's statement that Hillary hasn't been "in tune with [Obama's] appeal for the nobler aspirations" of the American people is, unfortunately, legitimate criticism of the way Hillary Clinton has been conducting herself lately, though it still might have been better if he hadn't said that.
The double standard here is obvious. Racial dogwhistles by staffers are okay, dubious statements by unconnected supporters require punishment of Obama.
-
@chartfan
[Read the article: Hip-hop is no longer cooler than me]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You didn't read all the letters did you? People already noted this. The point is it's absurd for someone so young do complain about kids these days in terms which make him sound like an out of touch old guy.
There is no "ageism" here and I think you take offense at this as a red herring used to evade real issues of racism.
The point is it's BS for a white guy who knows little about hip-hop to use an idea of cool he had at age 8 to call young black men "lame". It's racist.
-
DNA isn't exact proof.
[Read the article: Has our reverence for DNA gone too far?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As others point out DNA evidence isn't 100% perfect. To anyone who follows reality, tests can be inconclusive, flawed and fudged. The nature of what constitutes a good match has evolved and changed.
There's been several notorious cases of crime labs which turned out to have substandard testing, sampling and results. Less frequently mentioned is how not every DNA match is conclusive, but prosecutors blur the line between definitive and potential matches - much as they do with fingerprints.
Until there's a case with conclusive proof someone was incorrectly convicted or exonerated, people won't think about it. Even though the history of fingerprints technology has shown that scientific doesn't always equal accurate and true, people assume new tech is flawless. It isn't.
This is why the taking of fingerprints is still a contentious issue (contrary to Serai1's claim).
Also, paranoid talk of "framing" overlooks framing by coincidence - like any evidence, the validity of DNA depends on where and how it was left. Yet zealous prosecutors have conflated the mere presence of DNA near a crime scene as conclusive proof.
"The innocent have nothing to fear." is an essential warning sign a measure is draconian and dangerous. The innocent have plenty to fear. As others have pointed out, mandatory sampling leaves it open for use or abuse by whatever legal system can get access, as well as some private ones.
As others have pointed out, if you want to build a repressive society, start by using people who are suffering from PTSD.
-
The ignorance of tina schrier
[Read the article: Has our reverence for DNA gone too far?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hello? If you are a suspect they will take your DNA. They already do that without a conviction. All you have to be is a suspect.
-- tina schrier
Tina, you are either stupid or lying. It is currently not legal to take DNA without a warrent. That's why it is a big deal a rape victim is embracing this new intrusion on civil rights.
-
The Brownshirt Mentality Fueled By Truthiness
[Read the article: The MySpace mom's prosecution threatens us all]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The blind emotion and willingness to ignore laws and fact for a sense of justice disturbs me. This far into the PATRIOT act and FISA abuse era people are still willing to abandon rights in an emotional reaction to a story they don't really know.
The law is not based on emotional needs but logic and justic for good reason. The legal response to an issue is not always the emotionally satisfying one, and that's a good thing.
Someone wrote: "That said, I don't blame the prosecutors for charging her. Even if it doesn't stick, they've sent a message. Drew's behavior may not have been illegal, per se, but it is unacceptable. The indictment itself is a message that our society won't tolerate this kind of behavior, especially from adults."
Filing unfounded charges just to "send a message" are the methods of authoritarians. It's a short hop to justifying imprisoning innocents at Gitmo (which we are) just to send a message to terrorists.
In addition most people are presenting a half-remember version of the story which isn't correct. I suggest you read the New Yorker article. It makes it clear the prank involved mix motives and it wasn't a premeditated harassment but things said during a flame war between Megan and several people including the fake account - which was being used by a teenager at the time.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/01/21/080121fa_fact_collins?currentPage=all
When Tina got home, at five o’clock, she found Megan in front of the computer in a state of superheated distress. An insult war had broken out among Megan, Josh, and some of their friends. Megan had called another girl a slut, and the aspersions were returned in kind. Ron says that after Megan died he discovered a final message from Josh, saying, “You’re a shitty person, and the world would be a better place without you in it.”
It was still an ugly comment and tragedy, but it was not some methodical scheme to drive Megan out of her mind. It was an 18 year old girl who admitted writing the comment in the heat of an exchange. It wasn't the woman being charged. They didn't know Megan was a suicide risk - her parents weren't even sure that she was.
Were it not for the faux identity, this story would be tragic but not criminal. Unless you think an 18 year old should be brought up on federal charges for a nasty prank.