Letters to the Editor
MWise
Published Letters: 253 Editor's Choice: 19
-
Screw you NoVa!
[Read the article: Stepping in "macaca"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm so sick of hearing about how great NoVa is and how the rest of Va is a tax-sucking backwater filled with racists. Sorry NoVa, but there is a lot of diversity outside the suburbs of McMansions and strip malls. We got progressives in Charlottesville, Richmond, Norfolk, Williamsburg, and even in Break, VA where Allen made his nasty comments.
Here's some numbers for you:
2000 Elections
Locality Allen Robb
NoVa aka "Civilization"
Fairfax Co 48% 52%
Loudon Co 57% 42%
Alexandria 34% 65%
Manassas City 56% 45%
Montgomery Co 51% 48%
Prince William 54% 46%
Other VA Counties aka "Backwoods"
Dickenson Co 46% 53%
Richmond City 31% 69%
Albemarle 48% 52%
Newport News 45% 55%
Brunswick Co 43% 57%
Henrico Co 54% 46%
You'd find that NoVa has quite a few Republicans. But I guess those are just the nice ones that other than not liking to pay taxes are really just Democrats. Perhaps the reason why some of VA counties don't vote Democratic is because they don't like being stereotyped as stupid hicks??? If the Dems want to win more voters, they actually need to go to these places and talk to them and convince them that Republicans that for all of their talk about working families and "family values" aren't looking out for them, but instead looking out for big businesses, for polluters, for their rich friends, etc.
So why do you think Allen was stumping in Dickenson County? It wasn't because he won that county in the last Senate race, it wasn't because it's the bastion of the Red voter (it went with Kerry in 2004), it was because he was trying to boost his support there and GAIN VOTES. That's what you need to do to win. Although, it seems, that you can also win by suppressing the voter turnout in your opponent's strongholds and strike their supporters from the voter rolls...
-
EC as BC
[Read the article: No refills for you]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So why are you irresponsible if you use EC as your main form of BC? The only reasonable answer is efficacy. If EC effectiveness was the same or better than other forms of BC, then the choice to use EC as BC is no different than using any of form of BC. (My personal experience is the EC's side effects were too extreme to use it as a primary form of BC, but that may not be true for others.) So why the big deal about the refills? Is it because these pharmacists are worried that their customers aren't being prescribed a more effective form of birth control? I hardly think so.
-
Response to Mr. Neal
[Read the article: No refills for you]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Mr. Neal says
"If you don't want to have children then wear use a contraceptive that works for you!"
Well, maybe EC is the form of birth control works best for someone that is infrequently sexually active. Using hormonal birth control or having an IUD can have some pretty severe side effects.
Looking at the numbers (from Planned Parenthood's site) EC does seem as effective (when taken within the 72 hour window) as condoms.
EC efficacy: "can reduce the risk of pregnancy up to 120 hours after unprotected vaginal intercourse. The sooner they're taken, the better. They work best when taken within 72 hours — during this time they can reduce the risk of pregnancy from 75 to 89%. For example, eight out of 100 women will become pregnant after having unprotected intercourse once during the second or third week of their cycles. But only one to two women out of 100 will become pregnant after taking EC pills."
Condom efficacy: "Of 100 women whose partners use condoms, about 15 will become pregnant during the first year of typical use. Only two women will become pregnant with perfect use.
Comparing the numbers, EC looks to be more effective than the sponge and diaphragm.
I wouldn't recommend EC pills as a primary form of birth control because of the side effects and because it gives no protection against STDs.
Mr. Neal, you go on to say that you don't want to judge anyone's sex life, but you say "So don't tell me that the reason we need to just indiscriminately hand out refills to every woman that walks in the door is because their primary contraceptive, SUCH AS A CONDOM may fail. I ain't fallin for that excuse." If you aren't judging anyone's sex life, why DOES IT MATTER WHY THEY NEED EC???? Is it semantics? Should we just call EC, birth control and be done with it? Fine, I'm all for that. So if EC is valid as a form of birth control, why is it then irresponsible to go out and get refills for it? We indiscriminately hand out condoms all over the place, but don't call the people that use them irresponsible. Or is it just a timing issue...if you use a method before or during sex, it's not irresponsible, but if you take those EC pills you got this morning, you are irresponsible? That doesn't make any sense. What if I got the pills a week prior to having sex and then took them right after...would that make me more responsible? I think that just makes the case for making refills available stronger.
-
Single Sex Education
[Read the article: Public schools in distress? Gender stereotypes to the rescue!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Most school systems barely have enough resources as it is. Where are they going to come up with double the classroom space and double the teachers? Or maybe they can work this plan: girls go to school in the morning and boys go in the afternoon. Cheapest way to reduce class room size! Brillant!