Letters to the Editor
rtf100
Published Letters: 181 Editor's Choice: 8
-
sunspot
[Read the article: A depressing victory for Bill Donohue]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Your post is not on point with the issue being discussed. What does priest pedophilia have to do with this topic? Why don't you bring up the Crusades while you are at it? I sense that you are avoiding the issue because it smacks of hypocrisy. Let me remind you what hypocrisy is:
Hypocrisy is the act of condemning another person, where the stated basis for the criticism is the breach of a rule which also applies to the critic and of which the critic is in breach to a similar or greater extent.
What I am opposed to is that when people of faith such as Donohue, regardless of whether you like the man or not, go after an egregious attack on his faith's symbols and traditions, the liberal media, particularly in this case, demonizes the messenger and pays no attention to the underlying issue. That core issue is respect for religious symbols, traditions, and beliefs of all faiths, which I thought all good lefty comrades subscribe to . Joan Walsh is more about pay-back for Donohue having called out the 2 John Edward's bloggers who also published extremely offensive attacks against Catholic beliefs. By implication, left wing discourse seems to be encouraging more, not less, anti-Catholic rhetoric and Joan Walsh is being hypocritical. She was previously bragging about how the discourse on Salon is so much better than other blogs but in this instance she seems more interested in pandering to her subscriber base.
-
No Smoking Gun
[Read the article: Are women unmotivated earners?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have never seen any instance in the working world where a woman was paid less than a man for the same work, the same job title, the same qualifications and in the same point in time. That statement covers over 30 years in several important industries. That also includes even more senior level positions. This is consistent with what others have said in that there is no overt disrimination. Sophisticated companies will not knowingly underpay a female worker for the same "unit of work" and the same skill set.
However, what I have seen repeatedly is that over the long-run, fewer women than men achieve senior level positions in companies because they "pull-back" in their early to mid-30's and refuse to assume additional responsibilities. This effectively limits their careers somewhere in the middle of the corporate ladder. Men, by default, continue on and assume those higher level positions. Does this reflect gender bias, or, as some of the posts indicate, more a reflection of individual choices and not some evil scheme perpetuated by one gender over the other.
I believe the facts bear this out and to push for total equality on all measures of "success" is more a political issue than necessarily a practical or desirable one.
-
Let's parse Don Imus before he gets canned
[Read the article: Firing Imus was the right thing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What I am hearing is that the use of the term "nappy headed" is the real issue rather than the use of the term "hoes". Unfortunately, most girls from age 12-20 will tell you that being called a "hoe" is normal everyday conversation and no big deal because being "ghetto" is cool these days. However, talking about "nappy headed" is all about "curly black hair" and therein lies the problem. There is nothing in the current culture that will give you a pass from this type of a racial slur. However, when you put the two together, you get confusion because there are a lot of folks who think that the hip-hop culture is largely to blame for our depraved culture, anyways, and that Imus is just "along for the ride" and should get a pass. And Don is also clever in that he assumed he would get a pass because people in powerful positions would never really understand what he said and what he really meant.
-
Joan Walsh is not listening
[Read the article: Black rappers made him do it!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Joan is trying to refute the notion that the rappers made Imus say what he did. I agree with her in a literal sense but I think what people are really saying is that rappers are heavily responsible for the trashing of young women, in general, and that Imus was clever enough to go along for the ride. The basic issue I am hearing is whether Imus is to be held to a higher standard than rappers. I think the argument that says the rappers get a free pass because they don't talk to presidential candidates is ridiculous because most kids between 10-15 consume mostly rap music and act out its lyrics. I cannot give rappers a free pass on this. Imus is wrong but the rappers and their corporate protectors are also on the hook.
In a sane society, why do we expose our kids to such poison and take the view that rappers are some sacred cow. Is this where political correctness has led us