Letters to the Editor
Sean P.
Published Letters: 45 Editor's Choice: 12
-
Good article, but...
[Read the article: Rice dystopia]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I thought the article was very interesting, but I was baffled by this sentence:
And unlike Monsanto, which requires that all purchasers of its G.M. seeds agree that Monsanto won't be liable for any contamination of their neighbors' crops, Bayer can't hide behind a weasel-worded contract.
As they say at Slashdot - IANAL (I am not a lawyer) - but this doesn't make sense. Farmer Jones can sign all the contracts he wants to with Monsanto, but his neighbor Smith isn't bound by them - if he feels his crops have been contaminated by Jones' use of GM seeds, he's free to launch whatever lawsuit he wants, right? Smith hasn't signed any contract not to sue.
Or am I missing something?
Sean
-
Peak Lycra, etc
[Read the article: The salt-oil connection]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Do I really need to point out the difference between "peak Lycra" and "Peak Salt"? If we run out of Lycra, we can go back to animal skins, or whatever. But if we run out of salt, we can... die from salt starvation. Most of the stuff we use, we don't really need. But there are a few things that we can't live without - these are the ones that we should think about in the event of a sudden post-oil collapse (which, as another poster has pointed out, seems rather unlikely in itself). So it's not really true that there's an infinite number of things to worry about. We'd need to concentrate on the problems that could kill us.
-
The moon has nothing to fear for another reason
[Read the article: Billboards in space]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There's a more fundamental problem with space advertising than aesthetics. Even if you could get past the "yuck" factor involved in putting the Pizza Hut logo on the moon (or in orbit), there's no way that Pizza Hut, Inc, could ever afford to do so. Think about what would be required. You'd have to make a sign roughly the size of North America to be visible from the moon, and you'd have to transport all the labor (with associated life support) and materials straight up for 250,000 miles. Not. Gonna. Happen.
I have this conversation with space travel enthusiasts all the time, who like to believe that there's this big NASA conspiracy to prevent private exploration and exploitation of space. They have trouble grasping the fact that space travel is really, really expensive, and it's unlikely that space advertising (or space manufacturing, space elevators, etc) would ever pay off.
This whole argument is reminiscent of census taking for angels dancing on the heads of pins. Vastly entertaining, but doesn't signify too much.
-
What? Bush doesn't have a plan B?
[Read the article: What does he know that you don't?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well, you could knock me over with a feather. The fact that GWB is disconnected from reality and has no plan for victory beyond simply hoping for it comes as a HUGE surprise.
...
Wait, were we talking about Iraq or the election?
Come on, people, the reason Bush isn't worried about the election is that he's CLUELESS. He has no curiosity to find out for himself what's really going on, and no one dares to tell him. I think we can safely put away our tinfoil hats here.
-
What does it take to make you happy?
[Read the article: Melinda Gates: A woman to watch]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Before I launch into my rant, some background: I'm a man with a wife and daughter. I read Broadsheet every day, because I care about issues that are going to affect said wife and daughter. I'm all about equal rights for women and men. But sometimes, I have to roll my eyes about some of the stuff I read here:
There are other things that are a little hinky about the Journal's write-up on Gates... "Skeptics who initially were turned off by Mr. Gates's reputation for hubris in amassing his software fortune have warmed to Ms. Gates and her humility in helping him give it away." Humility, grace ... Other words used to describe Melinda Gates include "humble" and "soothing."
And that's a bad thing... why, exactly? And why can't I shake the feeling that if she was described as a more aggressive person, you'd be upset that businesswomen were being stereotyped as bitchy? But this is the paragraph that really gets me:
"Bucking stereotypes, the couple had decided as they worked on their AIDS Conference speeches that Ms. Gates would focus on science and Mr. Gates on ways to help women, who make up most new HIV cases world-wide." Get it? He acts like he cares about women, and she acts like she knows about science! It's like "Freaky Friday"!
Geez-o-Pete, Rebecca, what would it take to please you here? Am I to understand you'd be happier if Ms. Gates just took on the traditional women's issues part of the presentation? Or was the newspaper not supposed to mention the fact Ms. Gates did the science and Mr. Gates did the women's issues? Or what? That fact that the female half of the team took on the science issues is a GOOD thing, and the fact that the newspaper called it out is a GOOD thing. Why all the snark?
I hesitate to even say this, because I really, really hate to sound as if I'm spouting GOP talking points... but I honestly think that you're trying a little too hard to find ways this article is discriminating against women. I get that sometimes "nice" words are really patronizing putdowns, but I don't really think that's what's going on here. Sometimes a compliment is just a compliment.
-
I'm beginning to sense a pattern here...
[Read the article: Men and the pill]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Rebecca, what the hell is it with you? Some women have issues with chemical birth control. Some men have issues with chemical birth control. But only the men, apparently, are "truly obnoxious". If the men in the interview had expressed the idea that contraception was purely the woman's problem, I'd be with you. But that's not what I'm reading - they were asked about a particular method of birth control, didn't care for it... and apparently deserve condemnation as a result.
I personally wouldn't be keen on this method myself - who knows what the side effects would be? But I'm more than willing to just use a damn condom. I guess I must be "truly obnoxious" as well.
Sean