Letters to the Editor
stilltheone
Published Letters: 506 Editor's Choice: 31
-
Can't argue with success...
[Read the article: We'll go no more a-Rove-ing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We're being way too quick to denounce Bush's presidency as a failure. Bush achieved his 2 principal goals -- huge tax cuts for the wealthy and packing the Supreme Court with right wing idealogues. Add to that the prosecution of 2 wars that handsomely rewarded his (and Cheney's) friends in the military industries and the huge concentration of power in the executive branch, and you've got a conservative wet dream of a presidential administration. These are huge victories given that Bush had no eletoral "mandate" in either election and a closely divided Congress.
There wasn't really much else of a public agenda. Which is entirely consistent with what most conservatives want government to achieve, i.e., nothing. Privatization of social security? A smoke screan, I think, to avoid any real debate over how to fix the social security system. Imigration reform? More of an attempt at legacy than a heartfelt policy objective -- otherwise he would have pushed harder early in his presidency instead of waiting until the Democrats controlled Congress. What else was there?
Rove is leaving office as a hero to the right, no doubt about it, and the country has followed him and Bush precipitously in that direction. Look at what passes for a Democratic primary season -- candidates talking about keeping troops in Iraq indefinitely, not one single leading candidate coming out (you should pardon the expression) in favor of gay marriage, tepid healthcare proposals -- and this is the Democrats supposedly talking to their BASE. When the nominated Democratic candidate heads for the middle next fall, I predict that the Democrat and Republican candidates will be nearly indistinguishable. And that, of course, means one thing -- tons of Rove-like mud-slinging from both sides.
-
The story NOT reported...
[Read the article: Fishing for boys, pedicures for girls]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why do these issues always come up in the context of girls who are supposedly being deprived of the opportunity to do "boyish" things, rather than the other way around? Why, when Tracy finally points out that there might be boys out there who are being pressed into gender-segregated activities, does she choose an image of that rare boy who actually enjoys "stringing beads", as if that were some kind of universally recognized feminine activity? Why did she not say, for example, that there might be a boy out there who'd like to play with dolls or, imagine, have a spa day? Now, THAT'S a kid I feel sorry for. That kid will never have a parent challege the gender-divide for him, and never have a Tracy who will write an article for him.
The truth of the matter, I think, is that our society has BENT OVER BACKWARDS and done triple somersaults to make sure that girls can do whatever they please. As the story itself seems to indicate, the camps were segregated because the vast majority of the kids (and presumably their parents) wanted it exacly that way. I'm quite sure that with little effort, these parents can find a dozen camps where little Sally can fish and sling mud to her heart's content. But where's the camp where Johnny can play with Barbies?
-
Worlds Full of Wonder...
[Read the article: My new girlfriend makes dolphin noises in bed! Make her stop! Please!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If she starts to nudge lost boats to safety with her nose when you take her to the beach, get her an agent immediately. The world needs a remake of Flipper.
-
Way to go
[Read the article: I don't want to be a doctor!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You did good, Cary.
The immigrant parents of a confused 20-year old have spent their lives instilling in this kid the importance of finishing her education, of entering a profession, of reaching for a higher place on the socio-economic scale than they were able to land. You honored them by pointing out why those values really are important, instead of giving her permission to completely defy their wishes.
I think pursuing a degree in law and serving in the Peace Corps, in whatever order works for her, is a terrific plan for this LW, a great way to spend the next 5 or 6 years. She just seems more "arts and humanities" than "science and technology". Anyway, something about one of those 2 experiences is certain to light a spark and reveal to her what she wants to do with her life. Who knows, she may discover through the Peace Corps that medicine really is her calling.
-
You were expecting maybe a wedding announcement in The Times??
[Read the article: Why bathroom sex is hot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let's get real. When you're 62, married, a US senator who has spent a lifetime condemning homosexuality, and sufficiently risk-averse to avoid jeopardizing your career by paying for sex or hooking up on line or investing more than 2 minutes and 13 seconds in a romantic interlude --but nevertheless as gay as J. Edgar Hoover-- what are your options??? Under the circumstances, a dimly lit stall at an airport bathroom starts to look like the honeymoon suite at The Plaza!
-
Gosh, I forgot to sign the "Craig for President" petition...
[Read the article: In defense of Larry Craig]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Tell me again why it's so "tragic" that Craig is being forced to resign for merely wanting to have gay sex, while Vitter is getting a pass?? Should I have been wanting Republicans to keep Craig in office too? Would that little exercise in intellectual honesty (if that's what it is) have scored me some points anywhere in this debate? I seriously doubt it. If it's all the same to you, I'll continue to take joy in the ouster of Craig.
Geez, both sides seem to unequivocally agree that you can't be the flag bearer for institutionalized homophobia if you're busy making pit stops to soilicit public gay sex on your way to catch a plane. I think having acheieved consensus on that one narrow point is enough to cheer for today. I'll worry about Vitter tomorrow.
-
Oh please...
[Read the article: Hit her, baby, one more time]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well, Rebecca, at least you got a column out of it, right? I love the way you pretend to hate the humiliation just before heaping on a good helping of it yourself. If the Britney spectacle offends, maybe you should just change the channel. There's a war going on, or hadn't you heard? Maybe you could write about that instead. Or the presidential campaign.
You're really just one small step on the food chain above MTV. You just make that clicking sound with your tongue better than they do.