Letters to the Editor
fiver
Published Letters: 12
-
Differing Perspectives
[Read the article: Dusting off 17th century rape laws]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Men and women view the crime of rape quite differently, and this was as true in the 17th Century as it is today. In nearly every famous rape case, before a trial has even begun, sides are taken based almost solely on gender.
Both sides apparently take a self-oriented, worst case scenario view of the situation. For a woman, this scenario is to have been raped and then not believed. For a man it is to have been falsely accused of rape. Unfortunately, both sides have historical merit. That is why the facts of each case need to be carefully examined before a decision is reached. This is something generally reached through criminal due process. Not in this bill however.
The implication in Ms. Clark-Flory's final paragraph that only those men who are convicted in a criminal court, with a presumption of innocence and (presumably) proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, is simply not accurate as the Washington Post article made clear:
After the bill's sponsor in the Senate, Sen. Jamin B. Raskin (D-Montgomery), testified Tuesday, Vallario expressed concern that a man could lose his rights as a father in a family court even if he was not convicted of rape in a criminal court, lawmakers and advocates in attendance said. He also suggested that women could abuse the law by saying they were raped to punish a man from whom they were estranged. (emphasis added).
While Hale's notion that it is "easy" for a woman to criminally accuse a man of rape has thankfully gone pretty much the way of the dinosaur, are we ready say that litigants in a divorce case seldom make false accusations? Even with clear financial and custodial incentives at stake?
-
Ode to the Self-Righteous
[Read the article: Firing Imus was the right thing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Although members of the right and left agree on few things, the obligation of the establishment to censor or eliminate speech with which the establishment disagrees appears to cross political lines. Both the Imus comments and Janet Jackson's boob allowed people to hop on their high horse and show just how superior they are. To hell with freedom of speech...
Does anyone really believe that Imus' comments needed any response other than those made by the young women on the Rutgers team? Nobody hearing them speak could possibly believe the team was a bunch of "nappy-headed hos."
Let speech be answered with more speech, and try to resist the hypocrisy of the self-righteous.
-
Emily:
[Read the article: Firing Imus was the right thing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Nearly all major media in this country has been concentrated into ten giant corporations. Imus has just been censored by one-fifth of them (G.E. and Viacom). The implication that, because Imus can still pass out fliers on the street corner, freedom of speech has not been affected, ignores significant realities.
A major problem involving race relations in this country is that we can't even talk about race issues in large public forums. Imagine a video of Imus' comments followed immediately by a video of those accomplished, classy young women and their responses. How is censorship a preferred approach?
For myself, even though I may personally agree with some views enforced by corporate media, I don't trust corporate media to be the arbiter of what opinions I get to hear or not hear. Trusting them to decide what is suitable for public dissemination has led to serious misinformation (e.g. 9/11=Osama bin Laden=Saddam Hussein=WMD=war).
-
"Corporations" can't ruin a person's life... -Emily
[Read the article: Firing Imus was the right thing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What???
I think you might want to re-type that. That said, I agree Imus will probably find a job on pay radio.
Has anyone noticed how, more and more, we have to pay for uncensored content? (e.g. HBO, Howard Stern, etc.)
-
Emily,
[Read the article: Firing Imus was the right thing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I never complained because I might have to pay for Imus; I don't care about Imus. I complain because censorship appears to be the given - with uncensored content only available in the Premium Package.
By the way, attacking First Amendment defenders by associating them with the underlying speech/speaker is a cheap tactic.
If I oppose anti-flag-burning legislation, I suppose that means I hate our troops. Rush Limbaugh and FOX News would be proud.
I'm outta here. Peace.
-
Can We Rely on the Authorities for Protection?
[Read the article: I'm almost 21. Should I buy some guns?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]My trust is severely shaken. At both Virginia Tech and Columbine, heavily armed officers were on the scene for significant periods of time yet did nothing whatsoever to stop the shootings of unarmed students. On September 11, the Federal government took extraordinary steps to protect its own (especially Bush and Cheney), but did nothing to protect the public. At the outset of the L.A. riots following the Rodney King verdict, the authorities abandoned the public to protect their own.
Our government repeatedly asks us to relinquish more and more rights in supposed exchange for added safety, however, aside from 24 and other shows on T.V., when has giving the government more power and relinquishing our rights made us safer? It appears that when we need them the most, our "protectors'" first (and only?) concern is self-preservation.
-
The Convenient Alcoholic
[Read the article: Notes on "A Tragic Legacy"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Calling himself an alcoholic, saved by Billy Graham, gave Bush the perfect excuse. He desperately needed some excuse for his frat-boy lifestyle and a life of non-accomplishment before 40. Anything bad could be written off because he was "the victim" of "a severe addiction" or hadn't yet been saved from "devil liquor." The worse the purported addiction, the more glorious his salvation.
All he had to do was stop drinking in public. Quite easy if your alcoholism, like virtually every other aspect of your life, is a convenient lie.
-
I'm not an Israeli either...
[Read the article: Krauthammer's plan to deny Palestinians gas and electricity]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But it is essential to realize that, for Krauthammer, Podhoretz and other neo-conservatives, making the U.S.'s agenda identical to the Israeli agenda is a tenet of faith.
The major beneficiary of the adoption of the neo-con agenda has been the State of Israel. The most deplorable tactics and most blatant power grabs in the GWOT are straight from the Israeli playbook. Holding someone indefinitely without charge is old news for Likudniks. Israel has long since graduated to out and out group murder with the only justification being "a suspected militant."