Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 111 Editor's Choice: 4
-
O'Reilly is Right!
[Read the article: O'Reilly and Robertson: Agree with us or die]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think Billy O has it right --let's let each state control it's own federal funds. Since we know Bill is against "hand-outs" I'm sure he'll agree that cutting California off from the federal teat means they don't have to pay in, either.
In fact, I have long advocated a constitutional amendment against all such handouts. The constitution should provide that no state may receive more in federal services, funds, etc., than it pays in in taxes.
End State Welfare Now! Free California!
-
Shoe on the Other Foot
[Read the article: 2006: Bush's Waterloo?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In all the hub-bub about the Unitary Executive (which does not, by the way, translate to "the President is free to pick and chosse which laws he/she will follow"), could someone on our side, like you, Tom, point out that the Republicans are interested in strengthening the Executive only in the case where that Executive is a Republican?
I don't think Senator Hatch would be terribly interested in the Signing Messages of one President Hillary Clinton, or allowing her to wiretap him without a warrant.
-
She da bomb
[Read the article: "Last Holiday"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Queen Latifah truly is one of the great on-screen people, perhaps of all time. The better scripts will come, and she'll go down in history as one of the all-time greats.
And, uh, she wasn't advertising for Wal-mart. Walmart was advertising for her. The money flowed the other direction, ya mope.
-
Taking the Bait
[Read the article: Whipping the Post]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Once again, progressives have taken the bait, just like old Charlie Brown who couldn't resist kicking that football that Lucy held.
From now on, all Abramoff-gate reporting in the MSM will include the meme that there has been controversy over just how much this scandal is a bi-partisan scandal. This business with the WaPo will be used as an example of the intense partisanship around the question -- proof, if you will, of just how controversial the issue has become.
There is simply no need for the left to call out the SCMSM on all of their errors, especially to the exclusion of calling out the Republicans with equal or greater vigor. The fact that the left does harp on these things shows how Democratic leadership is failing: Democratic leaders should be able to move the debate by staking out positions that are newsworthy and force the debate onto our turf, thereby giving supporters something more compelling to support. Instead, we get incrementalism of the worst sort, and legions of supporters who have nothing to support.
-
Hey! -- What About Us?
[Read the article: Feminism after Friedan]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think Friedan's insights had a lot to do with gender equality, and I think our current culture is all but allergic to that concept.
I think there's no inherent reason why the lure of domsticity should be stronger to women than to men. We think it's so and therefore it is so.
Should I stay at home or should I work, we're told, is the dilemma of new moms. But it's a red herring. No partner is required to be primary, and there's no reason for there to be a sort of inherent bias in favor of mom. By arguing and debating this question, we are "taking the bait:" we are ignoring the real issues that pose real challenges on families.
In our society today, our rhetoric over asserts the loudest the opposite of what it really means. And is our rhetoric ever pro-family. Why, I sometimes wonder why single people don't rise up and protest at the shameless and endless pandering of our public leaders to the icon of family. But in fact our society remains adamantly anti-family.
When a child is born, its parents are given precious little support, and essentially none if there not a strong family support structure in place. Certainly, there's no ability to take off time from one's work to care for the child, at least for most people. (Smith alumna may have more choices, but this tiny fraction doesn't constitute a significant social challenge.) The daycare choices available to most families are often far below what we as a society should be demanding in terms of their quality. And far too many children (and their parents) lack the kind of medical care that a society as affluent as ours should expect as a matter of course. Finally, when the time comes for kids to begin an academic career, we offer them schools that have been financially starved to within an inch of their lives, guaranteeing the kids only the most basic level of education at the lowest possible cost. All in all, not terribly family-friendly.
The care and support of American families is not truly a "women's" issue. By casting it in those terms, we avoid the responsibility of dealing with the real issues. (Of course, I don't mean to mimimize the impact of fathers who abandon their families -- a serious problem with serious consequences. But I'd guess that it happens in a relatively small number of cases, and we could reduce those even further, I suspect, if we could do more to support families.) Helping moms, dads, kids, aunts, uncles, grandmas and grandpas to be better able to grow their families and raise kids who are likely to succeed is something every citizen has a stake in. Nor should we let dads off the hook when it comes to the angst that torments so many women -- to stay at home, to work, to work part-time. There are all issues that dads should be wrestling with just as much as moms.
At the end of the day, feminism is not a movement about liberating women from the tedium of animal work; it is about ensuring that women are full partners in all aspects of our society, from work to home to politics and everything in between. And on that score, with so few women in positions of power and authority relative to the numbers of men, we have a long way to go, baby.