Letters to the Editor
calcareous
Published Letters: 286 Editor's Choice: 48
-
what sort of candidate does a real democracy foster?
[Read the article: Barack Obama's nouvelle vague]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Anybody who thinks they can personally know a presidential candidate is fooling themselves. A pre-requisite for running for and office is the ability to pander to whomever you are talking to, and to avoid offending them. I submit that the best we can hope for from a democracy for an idea that transends the messenger.
I think Obama's avoidence of articulating detailed plans is a calculated strategy, and well suited to his personal style. Any idea worth proposing is open to a destuctive attack from some direction or another.
Recent history will show that any statements leading up to a candidate's election might as well be scribbled on a cocktail napkin - once in office they will do what they will, and lately this power is much expanded.
In an odd way, Bush43's appeal to "character values" might actually make some sense, but from a different perspective. In this age, can we really expect our leadership to know what to do in advance? Given the complexity of the world, and the US's place in it, how can we trust anybody who starts out by saying they know the answers? It's not about the answers, but about the questions, and they change daily.
I certainly don't have my mind made up yet, nor do I expect to be able to fully support any candidate, but more than any of the others I like Obama's thoughtful approach.
For all the bluster in some quarters about the greatness of our nation, they sure seem ready to leave it in the hands of fools.
-
Empirical study
[Read the article: Happy marriage, healthy wife]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]> Does it make sense to empirically study marriages as one kind of entity?
If you want any scientifically supported information, yes! Marriages ARE one kind of entity - an interpersonal relationship. The question is what variables are important, and how to track them.
-
Comparisons
[Read the article: Womb for rent]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There are lots of potentially dangerous jobs in the world, take mining for instance. Miners trade their physical capability for wages, and often are forceid into that dangerous and difficult work by extreme need. How is this different?
I can only think of good differences - the employer has a vested interest in the health of the employee, and that womb-renting actually pays well.
-
@ CParis1
[Read the article: Is abortion a civil rights issue?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]> Their goal is to control women's sexuality - no sex except in marriage.
If that were the case, they'd be advocating birth control only for married couples as was public policy back in the 60s. A married woman is as likely as an unmarried one to get pregnant from unprotected sex.
An anti-abortion position that doesn't advocate for birthcontrol is either for large families, or against sex. It has to be one or the other, unless they don't know the mechanics of how women become pregnant. I suppose they could be pro-homosexual sex, but that seems tremendously unlikely, all considering.
-
Abortion as a civil rights issue
[Read the article: Is abortion a civil rights issue?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As to the premise of their primary argument, it is clearly hogwash. If you want to show it is a civil rights issue, you'd have to show that people are being treated diffently because of their race. Not because they are poor, or promiscuous, or choose not to take precautions, but because of the nothing more than the color of their skin. Just because race and poverty are often associated, doesn't mean that the plight of the poor is a racial matter. Poor white people are in as bad of a situation as poor black people - poverty sucks.
I'm fairly certain that the reason they advance this argument is two-fold:
- to accuse somebody of racism is to put them on the defensive and to control the conversation. It is patently unacceptable to be percieved as a racist in modern America. It is no different than when people accuse those who are anti-war as not supporting our troops. While not an intellectually honest argument, it is effective, so the unscrupulous (ie: self-certain zealots) are ready to apply it, because for them, the ends justify the means.
- One of the founders of Planned Parenthood (Margaret Sanger)supported eugenics. Thanks to the Nazis and others, people associate eugenics with racial and ethnic prejudice, but that has nothing to do with it. This is essentially an ad hominem attack, and aims to associate modern supporters of family planning with the now outdated views of one prior advocate. It would be equally sensible to argue that anybody who supports abortion is a socialist, a view which Sanger also held.
Of course by equally sensible, I mean they are equal in their unsensibility. These people aren't speaking to those who can critically think, but to those who can't. Sadly, the message has some traction.
-
maybe you don't get it
[Read the article: Boobs to cure cancer?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]>I get it, I do. They're trying to sex up breast cancer awareness, but there's just nothing sexy about cancer.
Don't be so sure you get it, Tracy. What they are trying to show as sexy are healthy breasts. Therefor, breast cancer prevention is sexy, in the same way as working out for tight abs would be.
Given that there seems to be some innate resistance in some women to checking themselves, the site also functions as a way of desensitizing prudish women to self exams. Surely if many people can upload pictures of themselves, you have no good reason to shy away from a self exam in the privacy of your home.
If you want to really prevent cancer deaths, instead of breasts you should be talking about the importance of getting screening colonoscopies. Colon cancer kills many more people than breast cancer, affects both genders, and lots of people are squeemish about having somebody stick a flexible camera up there for a look.
That said, I'm not enthusiastic about the premise of the website either. While on one hand, the site may desensitize people to the breast, by emphasizing the sexual nature it could also reinforce the basis of the prudery.