Letters to the Editor
mmefiori
Published Letters: 25 Editor's Choice: 1
-
I expected the snide tone...
[Read the article: No need to breed?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...but to be candid, VHEMT doesn't need any "bromides" to sway people who are on the fence about breeding. The real bromides are the facts: over 100 years of environmental science that tells us our planet is only meant to sustain a finite number of humans given our rates of natural resource consumption. Scientists estimate that two billion, or the world population circa WWII, is the maximum sustainable given our current consumption rates.
Why is it that the suggestion of ANY level of population reduction prompts retorts that those who choose to reproduce are preserving the existence of the human race (and otherwise doing us any favors at all, which they aren't, IMO)? First of all, I've never seen anything but navel-gazing, Cary-Tennisish, sentimental spittle and platitudes offered up in support of the importance of perpetuating humanity. Why do we deserve to outlast every other living thing on the planet? Ms. Mieszkowski, why does VHEMT need to flatter and pander to the people who've selfishly determined that it's OK to bring us closer to environmental apocalypse, as long as they get a little Mini-Me or six with which to stymie their boredom and lack of purpose? How'd pandering work out for Al Gore or John Kerry?
Secondly, were humans in any danger of extinction when there were only one or two billion of us? Obviously not. Allowing the population to fall naturally to a stable, sustainable number in no way jeopardizes the continuity of human life. It's hysterical to suggest that we're going to "die out" if those humans that have the power to limit their family size do so.
It's equally hysterical to suggest that anyone who disagrees with the default choice to breed must, by default, hate children, if not all of humankind. ("You must hate America if you oppose the war!" Good gads, we're supposed to make fun of people like this, not embrace their logic.) It's sad that Ms. Thompson had to do the pro-mommy ankle-grab for the press, just so people like Mieszkowski (who earlier snotted that we should move to Ethiopia, presumably so that her own precious brood is free to pry off and burn the wood from our homes when the time comes) won't declare in their blogs that actual horns were seen growing on her head.
It's OK, though. This is about what I expected from Salon, where probably half the staff is self-obsessed yuppie Mommies who Think They Can Write.
-
Yeah, that's great, but...
[Read the article: Finally, women can pay for sex too!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...what about mail-order husbands? When do we get to see that, huh? And yeah, I've already seen http://www.mailorderhusbands.net/order, yukety yuk.
I realize I'm speaking only anecdotally, but my single female friends and I would really prefer to find permanent mates and get married, not hire prostate-itutes. Once during dinner at one of our houses, a few of us Googled "mail-order husbands" and "mail order grooms," and came up with nothing. Nada. Buttkus.
Does Heidi really want to make some bucks? There you go.
-
Disagreeable shrew?
[Read the article: Scary screeds about Maureen Dowd, written by threatened men]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Is it just me, or does John Ross define "disagreeable shrew" as any woman who demonstrates an unwillingness to carry his superior seed and raise his brood of upright apes.
Looks like I have something in common with Maureen Dowd.
Hark, is that Mr. Ross' doorbell I hear? I'll bet his new mail-order bride or Realdoll is out there on the stoop.
-
Now there's a mystery...somebody call Sherlock Holmes
[Read the article: Prayin' hard for better dayz]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"San Francisco has had desegregation for 25 years and during that time there has been no upward movement of achievement among black and latino youth and no one in this area, where the media is run by liberal whites, has investigated why."
Sacre bleu, it couldn't have anything to do with children who are raised to value brand-name sneakers and digital entertainment devices more than their own educations, could it? Naaah. It couldn't have anything to do with students who are more interested in attracting sexual attention they lack the emotional maturity to handle than cracking open the occasional school book and doing their assigned work, could it? Naaah. It couldn't be that today's multiracial urban youth neither know nor care about the sacrifices made for them at Little Rock, and feel a diploma is an entitlement rather than a reward for hard work, could it? Naaah, never!
By all means, waste not another minute. Let's assemble a highly-paid committee of semi-literate (but Affirmative-Action approved) government consultants to suck a few million in taxpayer funds over an indeterminate period of years, while they wring their hands over why Ramon and Shaneiekqua can't seem to get their little brown a$$es to class. Miraculously, they seem perfectly able to make it to Wal-Mart at 5:00 a.m. the day after Thanksgiving to beat the tar out of their neighbors over a discounted piece of electronics, but they won't study or go to class. Paging Sherlock Holmes!
Nobody's investigated because nobody cares. It's not the state's responsibility to make your children a success or endow them with values. This is parental turf. Children who aren't raised to value education, surprise surprise, end up not valuing education.