Letters to the Editor
Edson C. Hendricks
Published Letters: 25 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Gout diagnosis?
[Read the article: Dick Cheney and the disease of kings]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There are several ailments that resemble gout which are not gout in fact, as some have mentioned in this discussion. I don't believe I've read any report claiming Mr. Cheney actually suffers from gout as a medical diagnosis, but I could have missed that. Even if he has been diagnosed with gout, I'd still be inclined to be skeptical about it.
I suffered for more than five years with a chronic severe foot pain problem that produced symptoms closely resembling gout. It required crutches at its worst. Many suspected it was gout. But ultimately it turned out to be something very different, a condition that is little recognized or understood. It was "Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy Syndrome" (RSDS), also known as "Complex Regional Pain Syndrome" (CRPS). The happy news is that once I discovered exactly what it was, treating it turned out to be not difficult all, at least in my case.
Long distance medical diagnoses based on sketchy news reports are just foolishness, I think.
-
Body hair is not unattractive
[Read the article: All the guys I'm dating want me to shave down there]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Even if I wanted to, I couldn't possibly explain why popular fashions demand that women shave off all their body hair. Perhaps it has to do with the rise in popularity of slick pornography, where actors' pubic hair shaving is pretty much a practical necessity for hygiene on the set. That might explain the pubic hair business, but what about all that other hair ... like underarms and legs? I'm baffled.
Speaking for my single male self, everything female that I see that looks natural turns me on. And everything that looks phony and contrived turns me off. This goes for shaving everything everywhere, and also for piercings, tattoos, breast implants, and so on. It's all phony. If I wanted that junk, I'd just spend my time watching porno videos and save all that time and money.
I ask women I date *not* to shave anything, actually. They're much prettier to me the way they really are.
Best regards,
Edson C. Hendricks 8/9/06 16:06 PDT
San Diego, California
-
Words are for all to use
[Read the article: Who gets to use the N word?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Nothing in our national tradition or law allows the selective banning of the use of certain words for the general population, while permitting it for others.
Those who wish to use certain words for complicated reasons relinquish their standing to complain when others, not among their approved group, use the same words.
If we as a culture agree that certain words are offensive, as we sometimes do, then we must all agree not to use them as a matter of common civility. And this applies to all of us, not merely to those who somehow arrogate to themselves the authority to grant permission to selected others to use offensive words. Those who claim for themselves and their friends special permission to use generally offensive words simply grant permission for everyone else to use the same words merely by doing that, whether they agree to it or not. And then they make fools of themselves when they demand otherwise.
-
Why is there no indictment for the actual treason?
[Read the article: Right-wing noise machine: Plame not covert]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Especially now that we know Fitzgerald's investigation was entirely aware that Valerie Plame was a covert agent, it is preplexing to me that there have been no charges brought against the individuals known to have divulged her covert identity. I know the standard explanation is that such charges could not be brought because of Scooter Libby's obstruction, but I surely can't see why not. That seems a very weak excuse to me, and it makes no sense at all. I think this angle needs a lot more exploration.
-
Who is America?
[Read the article: America is not Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You say America is not Bush. So who is America? Certainly not the Democratic Party, after their shameful betrayal of their most loyal supporters in the recent legislation to continue funding for W. Bush's Iraq adventure on his own lame duck terms.
Can you nominate some other candidate, Sidney? Unfortunately, even if you don't like it, America actually *is* Bush, with the most recent support of his opposition Democratic Party. The rest of the world sees this clearly, and so we should see it just as clearly.
-
Perfect
[Read the article: Richard Cohen's brilliant (and unintentional) exposé of our media]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Many thanks for your absolutely dead-on piece. I immediately went straight to Amazon to pre-order your new ("Legacy") book, along with the last one, in appreciation.
It recalls for me all the bitching and whining we heard from the Repubs in the 1996 campaign about how if Bill Clinton were reelected, he would pardon all of his "criminal" friends. Some of Clinton's friends *were* in jail, but they weren't criminals guilty of anything, and they should have been pardoned. I suppose that would have been undignified in Clinton's view.
And then again we heard the same thing from these same pro-criminals about how Bill Clinton would surely pardon himself and all of his buddies as he left office. Clinton never pardoned himself or any of his friends, not ever, of course.
Who did he pardon? Mark Rich, who was a Republican and whose main lawyer was none other than Scooter Libby, that's who. It didn't stop 'em of course, they still screamed to deafening high heaven about Clinton's pardoning *anyone*, never mentioning that the pardoned person was one of their own.
Now look at them. What a damn sorry pile of abject hyprocicy.
Edson C. Hendricks 6/19/07 19:19 PDT
San Diego, California, USA
-
Question for Lieberman
[Read the article: McClatchy reports on shift in Iraq propaganda]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If Holy Joe Lieberman actually said back in January: "the U.S. was 'attacked on 9/11 by the same enemy that we're fighting in Iraq today,'" why can't some media interviewer simply ask Lieberman if he still believes that by now?