Letters to the Editor
Taritac
Published Letters: 111 Editor's Choice: 5
-
Fiance sounds kind of like a bastard . . .
[Read the article: I lost my engagement ring -- and secretly replaced it at Wal-Mart]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Is LW's fiance upset about the loss of the SYMBOL of their relationship, or is he concerned about the money? Does he give a damn about his fiancee's feelings at all? Certainly the ring is a very expensive trinket, but it is a symbol of their relationship-- shouldn't he value the meaning of the symbol, or at the very least, value the meaning his fiance places on the ring?
While Cary's advice was great, LW should definitely re-evaluate her relationship with her fiance. This guy has held a grudge for THREE YEARS about what was supposed to be a gift freely given in love. Not only that, but her fiance, who had the good sense to insure the ring for such an event, then selfishly KEPT THE MONEY and did not replace the ring! Is he trying to get back at her? Teach her a lesson? Whatever his purpose, he has shown himself to be at best selfish and perhaps a passive-aggressive control freak. LW should also question why her fiance would choose to reveal confidences and allow his family gang-up on her.
-
Go With Her
[Read the article: My wife wants to join the Peace Corps]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]LW did not explain why or if going with her would be out of the question. Since they are young and don't have kids, he should consider supporting her desires/ambitions and going with her for two years. He is young enough that his own career ambitions are probably salvageable and can be put on hold. If marriage means to have and to hold, then maybe he could have and hold her overseas!
-
Politics over Principle
[Read the article: Setting up an argument on Rove, the Democrats vote to toss Jefferson]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Democrats, again, are only playing politics, performing PR stunts that make a show of being "principled."
What about Mollohan? Mollohan is also under investigation, also has not been indicted, and also has seemingly used his position to enrich himself and his friends. The Democrats have allowed him to retain his seat on the Appropriations committee. Where are the Democrats' "principles" now?
Nancy's argument is that Jefferson's actions seem worse, somehow, than Mollohan's. How can she make such a claim? No indictments have been handed down, no charges made, and certainly no trials undertaken. The evidence in neither case has been weighed. Yet, they've chosen to protect Mollohan and to turn their backs on Jefferson.
Many people have criticized the Congressional Black Caucus for standing up for Jefferson, but their questions were reasonable ones: If Dems are trying to clean house, then why won't they demote all representatives under investigation? More importantly, if their actions aren't arbitrary, racist, or basely politically motivated, why won't they write new rules to cover just this situation, to set standards mandating when representatives should step down from leadership positions?
Democrats have either gone too far by ousting Jefferson, or not far enough by not ousting Mollohan. They can't have it both ways. These politicians would rather create an illusion of trustworthiness than actually behaving with integrity.
Most Americans know that politicians are by their nature corrupt. I doubt if Democrats can effectively demonstrate any difference from Republicans in this regard. If Democrats want to win in November, they have got to find some new ideas and develop real leadership instead of continually contrasting themselves to Republicans. They must come up with a better strategy than this go-nowhere "culture of corruption" bit.
-
Black Women Aren't Pretty?
[Read the article: The media's love affair with dead white women]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Peyser's article was right on, but Gawker then made the leap that the Post only covers PRETTY victims, meaning White = Pretty, "Other" = Ugly. Looking at the photo of poor Miss Petro-Nixon, I would say that she is FAR from ugly. Peyser's article points out the media's racial bias; Gawker's is an example of it.
-
Sure the house may be dirtier . . .
[Read the article: How to marry a Forbes man]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]. . . but how clean do houses need to be? The reason that the author of this article didn't provide any details of the articles he cited is because they probably didn't bolster his argument very much. From my "Women and Society" class back in the dark ages, I learned that, sure, women spend less time cleaning when they work-- uh, no shit. But the difference is usually minimal or irrelevant: women vacuum once a week rather than every day or they dust every other week instead of every week. In other words, their houses were dirtier only in the sense that they might not pass the white glove test.
It's amazing to me that there are people who still think this way. Some of the most successful marriages I've witnessed are pretty egalitarian. The women have as much or more education and financial/career success. The women may still do most of the child rearing and cleaning, but the men do more than just pitch in here and there. They are fully capable of doing laundry or washing dishes or changing diapers. These couples behave like two adults who have to figure out how to get things done, not like a boss and employee or a parent and child.