Letters to the Editor
dawdler
Published Letters: 98 Editor's Choice: 10
-
@Moira Kelly - I think you overestimate actual fraud
[Read the article: Lining up for the mortgage rescue plan]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Moira - I absolutely think that people who were defrauded by mortgage lenders should be made whole. However...
First - that should be done through the legal system which can do proper diligance in determining who was really defrauded, not by the Federal government who will simply create a blanket remedy that will over-compensate some and under-compensate others. But that takes time, and I guess politicians don't like to wait on things when an angry public wants a quick fix. I call BS on that.
Second - there were plenty of people who were not defrauded but simply counted on their home values going up to compensate for the interest rate balloon. That is known as taking a calculated market RISK. It is not the duty of the federal goverment to bail people out of poor judgement.
Third - I definitely think credit ratings agencies should be on the hook if they failed in their fiduciary duties to whomever they have said duty to. However, those cases also need to be tried before we make compensations.
Ultimately, I think that we will find that a large portion of foreclosures will not be due to fraud and neglect on the lenders side but simply poor judgement and bad luck on the borrower's side. You can't change that fact no matter how much melodramatic imagery you throw out there.
Sure, there's definitely a grey area where it's tough to determine if the lender was overly aggressive or the borrower was overly negligent. I'm all for erring on the borrower's side on that occasion. But that's not the same thing as a blanket get-out-of-jail free that this bailout is.
-
Kite Runner: Mediocre Book, Not Surprisingly a Mediocre Movie
[Read the article: Beyond the Multiplex]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I read Kite Runner and I never understood the hoopla. It was engaging at points but I felt that it was overly sentimental and lacked literary depth. It's funny, but as soon as I finished reading it I thought to myself "this novel read like a sappy Hollywood melodrama".
-
Salon Premium, You Just Earned Your Keep
[Read the article: Stop junk mail for good]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That is all
-
I Usually Just Read the Negative Reviews (but sometimes ignore them...)
[Read the article: Was this review helpful to you?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I find myself going immedietely to the 1 and 2 star reviews. Generally, I'm looking at a product because I'm already interested in buying it. Therefore, I want to make sure there's not a compelling reason NOT to buy it. So I read the negative reviews first and often don't even bother with positive ones.
BUT....
I also have to remind myself that EVERY product will get some negative reviews and that sometimes people will leave negative reviews for the wrong reasons. For example, someone will one-star a product because Amazon screwed up shipping.
-
I'm with @momesq. - False Dichotomy - As Usual, There's NO Middle Ground
[Read the article: Beyond the Multiplex]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As usual, we've polarized into "You're either with me or ag'in me" camps.
Just because you give birth in a hospital doesn't mean you can't have a LOT of the aspects of a "natural" birth.
My wife gave birth in a hospital, with our doula present, in a very comfortable room, lights dimmed, no rush, with a birth plan in place that called for exactly the birth we wanted. I.e. no drugs unless an emergency, etc., etc. It did NOT feel like an assembly line at all.
People are talking about hospital experiences in 1969! Look - things have changed since then. A lot of hospitals have become VERY progressive on childbirth and are very accustomed to doulas, birth plans, drug-free births, etc.
But hey - why find a middle ground when you can stake a radical position and not budge.
Birth-Fundamentalists!!! :)
-
@homefly - I wasn't talking about C-Sections
[Read the article: Beyond the Multiplex]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I wasn't at all talking about C-Sections. I was simply pointing out that birthing in a hospital is not mutually exclusive to a "natural" birth, as many people seem to imply. I'm not against home-birth. I'm just saying that people are getting real fundie about this stuff, as if hospitals are evil and we're all victims of a conspiracy among big pharma and big hospitals.
Your points about C-Sections are a red herring and completely tangential to what I was talking about.
And regarding the progressiveness of hospitals to doulas, birth plans and drug-free births, etc. I was only speaking of my own experience with my wife at a few hospitals. But based on conversations with friends and family as well, I would still argue that many hospitals are open to birth plans, doulas and drug-free deliveries.
-
i'm jealous
[Read the article: The letter E is purple]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]wish i could do that
-
When Did "The Media" Become Equivalent with "Journalism"?
[Read the article: Why campaign coverage sucks]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The media has always been more than just journalism. "The media" is all media. And it's interesting and significant that "the media" and "journalism" have become synonymous. They should not be.
The media always has been an ongoing conversation amongst all of us. A conversation whose main purpose, overall, has been entertainment. And, as in any conversation, sometimes we talk about stuff that's happened and sometimes we talk about stuff that hasn't yet happened.
Journalism, as distinct from "the media", is supposed to report objective facts and analyze said facts in an unbiased manner.
But, Jay, when did "the media" become equivalent with "journalism"?
Anyway - I think the big change is that even journalism has become about a conversation. Just look at blogging. Bloggers happily describe what they do as a "conversation". That's awesome. But journalism is not a conversation, per se. Or it shouldn't be.
Maybe real journalism should reassess how much of a conversation it really wants to be vs. a one-way reporting and analysis of facts. Leave the conversation to the "media".