Letters to the Editor
StefanMuc
Published Letters: 97 Editor's Choice: 4
-
What's her story
[Read the article: This Modern World]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I thought this while Kerry was running - having allowed Bush to drag the US into the Iraq disaster, he was partly responsible, too. He needed to have a story to explain why he voted the way he did, he needed to defend himself first to be able to attack Bush. That's not a great situation to be in, but the thing which puzzled me most was that he didn't actually have a story. He never really managed to get a clear consistent explanation out and heard by the people.
Hillary is not only in the same position, she is also repeating his mistake. Her supporters defend her this way or that way, but it's not clear what her story is. Some people say she voted the way she did because she was convinced by Republican propaganda that Iraq really was a threat, others proclaim she was tricked into just giving the president more negotiating power - not anticipating that he'd actually start a war. Both explanations have their weaknesses, but they could be convincing if they were presented consistently. However they can't both be true at the same time. If she doesn't pick one, she doesn't have a chance at convincing voters, and the more time she wastes the less credible her choice will be.
-
Definition on non-consent
[Read the article: Scotland: It's still rape if she's drunk]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think what many posters are concerned about (and some seem to have overread) is this part of the definition: "[...] where the victim was so intoxicated by consuming drink or drugs they lacked the capacity to give consent."
That seems to cover a scenario where a woman goes out and gets drunk, then tells some guy "lets do it" and proceeds to take him to court the next day. It also covers the scenario where a woman kisses and cuddles with a guy while drunk, falls asleep and he proceeds to have sex with he while she's passed out.
I think almost everybody would agree that the second case is rape, but there seem to be differing opinions on the first case. I'd prefer if the responsibility for your actions remains with yourself, even if you get drunk - after all as an adult you should be able to decide for yourself if you want to get intoxicated or not. Blaming men for that (and regardless of the gender-neutrality, that seems to be the usual case) seems unfair. Particularly so, because this is standard behaviour for so many people (men and women alike) - they go out to get intoxicated precisely because they want to lose their inhibitions.
I personally never had sex with a drunk, but I still think this definition isn't fair. If you are an adult you can usually control whether you get stinking drunk, and then that should be your own fault. To clarify: if someone forces another to drink, slips them drugs without their knowledge or rapes them while you they are passed out: throw the bastards in jail. If they agree to sex while drunk, they should deal with their regrets themselves.
-
Content?
[Read the article: Opus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Isn't the content of the book the real point of it? I read e.g. Goethe's Reineke Fuchs on the Internet (via gutenberg.spiegel.de) and many classic works as paperbacks - because reading the words is were the pleasure comes from for me. Sure a nice hard cover, may look good on a shelf, but the biggest load of drivel can be as well printed and bound as a great work of literature. The ideas, the story telling, the poetry - isn't that the essential reason for reading? Can a font, a leather cover and the feel of paper really compete with that?
-
Why the attention?
[Read the article: "We're all fascists now"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Alex - what has Goldberg previously produced that was interesting or insightful? Which predictions has he made which have turned out to be correct? Is there are particular reason why he should be referred to as a "pundit"?
We need our media to contribute to political discourse by pushing for standards - you need to differentiate between those who have valuable insights and those which do not deserve any attention. Otherwise we'll continue to be forced to discuss topics raised by swiftboaters or Michelle Malkin.
-
Excotic Germany...
[Read the article: Dirty, sexy opera]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sorry, but the Germany described by Laura Miller bears no resemblance to the one I currently live in. Now admittedly personal impressions of a country can differ wildely, but I think there are at least a few things which can be eliminated rather quickly: Of course in Germany there is only a small percentage of people who actually like classical music, only some of them like Wagner and only a subset of those might think of him as Germany's greatest composer. (I suspect quite a few might prefer Bach or Beethoven - among fans of classical music these guys are rather popular, too.) So considering this, I think you might find that there are not many people left who could be bothered to worship Wagner as a god.
I'm also not sure where you are going with Scheel - the guy gave a speech 32 years ago, and the reactions of the audience are relevant how? I guess I should check a German paper tomorrow and see if I find an article about the hippie culture in the US.
-
So
[Read the article: The knives come out in South Carolina]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What was the debate about? Was anything said about politics at all? I only ask because you kept referring to their points, so I assume they made some. Apparently those are not worth discussing, though.