Letters to the Editor
shannonr
Published Letters: 286 Editor's Choice: 80
-
Tongue clearly embedded in cheek
[Read the article: Equal-opportunity objectifiers?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]To read any kind of "objectification" into either of these ads is drawing an extraordinarily long bow.
All the "swap" ads, with the campy "host", the faux "hidden camera", and the extremely stagey "reaction shots" from the families, are tongue-in-cheek from start to finish.
In fact, I think you could make a strong argument that Chrysler is actually _mocking_ exactly the kind of "buy the car and get the girl" advertising of yesteryear.
Better yet, on the website you referenced, you get to see the whole sequence of ads -- including the "Dr Z" series -- all clearly with tongue embedded firmly in cheek.
And no, I don't work for Chrysler. Check my post history -- I've been on Salon for years.
-
Permaculture vs. Agribiz
[Read the article: Organic farming: Not sustainable?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It seems to me that there's a fair few false comparisons flying about.
Every discussion about Permaculture (or the like) that I participate in usually ends when the advocate says something like "And I only have to spend around an average of two hours a day in the large garden of my freestanding house!"
There are at least three parts of that picture that don't apply to me, or to most people I know. I live in Beijing (apartments only). There is no allotment system. No-one I know has _anything like_ 2 hours a day free time to spend on food production.
So, three strikes there. And I'm not alone!
Wealthy first world cities may well be able to be retro-fitted around some local (or even personal) production of food. Unfortunately, that's not where most of the people on this planet live.
Until the "organic farming" industry starts talking about solutions that put food into the mouths of 6 billion people daily -- not simply offering a trendy alternative for the (compared to $1 a day) super-rich -- then I'm afraid I'll remain unconvinced.
China used to have a system of familial food production based on permaculture-like use of the open ground inside every courtyard house. Until 30 years ago, China often starved. The difference between then and now? Simply, large-scale agriculture. Of course, and this is the greatest irony, being assured of your food supply, and not having to personally cultivate, means you have less kids, and educate the ones you have more, solving the overpopulation problem in the longer term. Now _that_ is true "sustainability".
Bravo to the authors of the featured article for actually attempting to run the numbers and ask the hard questions. More work needs to be done -- let's hope this sparks more research.
-
The population bit
[Read the article: Organic farming: Not sustainable?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sophie Brown wrote:
I don't think it really makes sense to suggest that food production and availablity led toward smaller families in China, where family planning was imposed by government fiat.
Thank you for bringing this up, Sophie, it's a vitally important point, and my statement, as you point out, wasn't clear.
The "one-child policy" was indeed introduced in China by government fiat.
But it's important to look at where it has worked, and where it hasn't. It's worked a treat in the cities, where people rely on food from far away.
In the countryside -- the source of the population problem -- the one-child policy has been completely and utterly ignored.
And it's the reason for this that is so germane to this discussion. In the countryside, the one-child policy has failed because people need all the free labour they can get for their terribly labour intensive family plot.
That's the connection. Efficient agribusiness has supported the urbanisation of China. As soon as people come to live in the cities, they get educated. Better yet -- they take up family planning of their own accord -- without the need for heavy-handed government interference.
Thank you for your justified criticism, and I hope this makes what I was trying to say clearer.
-
Please read more than the subhead
[Read the article: Ask the pilot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Lots of respondents here seem to have not read past the subhead summary. So let me help:
"Is legislation the way to fix the problem?"
Patrick answers "Maybe not. But certainly not the legislation that's currently being proposed, and we've got to keep this rare, badly managed incident in context."
To my mind, that's the correct answer.
Attacking straw-man positions -- things Patrick didn't say -- may make you feel better, but doesn't advance the debate. Why not propose legislation you think would work? Some of the better responses take up that challenge.
And to all the couch heroes writing letters about popping the slides and exiting onto a freezing, storm-swept, low-visibility tarmac, with heavy machinery and jets moving about, well, good luck to you!
Rather than "Area residents escape grounded airline", I think the "court of public opinion" is far more likely to return a verdict of "Three killed and 46 wounded in horror airport incident."
"I just didn't see them coming," sobbed the captain of the regional jet that sucked the three passengers into its engines, "people aren't supposed to be wandering randomly around on the tarmac!"