Letters to the Editor
Tyler_Mason
Published Letters: 490 Editor's Choice: 41
-
Why?
[Read the article: Lawsuit: Rape coverup by Halliburton/KBR ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why would they be held liable for raping a female co-worker in Baghdad when they can't be held liable for murdering the local females? That little document that Brenner signed really sets some folks outside the law.
The lost evidence might be useful in a civil trial, if she can name names and catch those guys on U.S. soil. Suing the company might cut into their profits from building prisons in the US, but they'll just tack the damages onto a contract so that the citizenry pays.
Wouldn't it be nice if a few of the security firms declared war on each other? Maybe that's one reason so many contracts are no bid.
-
reexamin the thesis a bit
[Read the article: Republican nightmare: An election-year recession]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The US economy was soaring under the clinton administration. Usually, that is a really good thing for the president's party. Eight years of peace, prosperity, and easy money.
Somehow, in the face of this, the dems managed to shoot themselves in both feet and an elbow. GW got elected and here we are.
I don't think recession will have that huge an effect on the democrap v. rethug contest. Neither is liked. If we're lucky, we'll see the rise of a 3rd party - but not leiberman.
-
'cause GM algae isn't needed
[Read the article: All natural pond scum to the rescue]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The starter stock is pretty good. Now start up the algae vats. They get full of gook in a few days (maybe less). Empty vat, but don't clean it too well. Add algae yummies and wait a few days, etc.
The rate at which the algae reproduce allows the starter stock to adapt to its environment pretty quickly. No need to zap mutations into it. GM isn't needed. If it took a year per generation, then they'd use GM in a heart beat.
Add in that GM makes many people queasy. With this algae you have the best of all worlds. Green, friendly, and not GM.
-
@tommydsz
[Read the article: I left an abusive marriage, and now I'm in love with a thief]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You're right, you are no lawyer. There is no law saying you must rat out your friends or anybody else. Keeping your mouth shut does not make you an accomplice.
On the other hand, if you help cover up the crime, you can be an accomplice. That takes some sort of positive action though.
As for the LW, run run run. No one is going to pin a medal on LW if she helps a bad man be good. Few will pity her when he turns on her. Odds are he will repeat his pattern. There's no sainthood in the wings for anyone trusting him to change.
-
Problem is ...
[Read the article: Is waterboarding more like swimming or eating rice pilaf?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hunter is right. There are "levels" to waterboarding. That's why we need to quit focusing on waterboarding and instead focus on torture. It doesn't make sense to outlaw one specific torture technique. They'll just employ another.
As an example, consider assault. Threatening someone with a knife is an assault (if they feel they are immediate risk of bodily injury ...). Stabbing them with that knife is also assault. There's a big difference between threatening and stabbing, but they are both assaults.
Now consider waterboarding. Does holding someone down and threatening with a hose count? Do you have to actually spray the victim? Tie them down? The strict definition can cover a fairly wide range of asshole activities ranging from intimidation to drowning.
Returning to the assault example. We have a broad definition of assault and the courts use it well. We don't have assault with knife being all that different from assault with gun or car.
Torture is already legally defined in international law. I think we need to establish that it is bad - and prosecute the tortures. Focusing on waterboarding just serves short term prurient interest.
-
Discrimatory but useful
[Read the article: Las Vegas gym case tests "Ladies Night law" ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Specials for women at the gym. Interesting, but any man that really cares is in serious need of a life. I look at it as an opportunity to barter for cheaper fees for myself. It helps to be one of the nice people.
As for ladies night at a bar. Cool. Many women are more than happy to buy drinks for a nice man. It's all the better if the drinks are really cheap. Once again, opportunity knocks.
Sometimes a lady friend will suggest we go to a ladies night because she wants to treat. There is no rule that only single women can go to ladies night or that they must become prey.
If they bar owners were smart about it, they'd pay attention to what women like to drink versus what men like to drink. Adjust the prices accordingly. No discrimination, just expensive single malt scotch and cheap cherry mai tais.
-
@Rob Mac
[Read the article: Girlies for a good cause]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Eh?
Mostly on the right? Any data or are you just being snippy?