Letters to the Editor
Janice78
Published Letters: 133 Editor's Choice: 6
-
Maybe not as important as the Stackhouse Filibuster...
[Read the article: I Like to Watch]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I do agree with Heather's point that working on a TV show isn't as inherently dramatic as deciding whether to assassinate a terrorist (I think at least a news show would offer more legit opportunities for the soapbox speechifying Sorkin did so well on West Wing), but I'm not worried. For one thing, satire does serve an important function (See: The Daily Show), and I'm sure Sorkin will make a few worthy meals out of the post-Nipplegate environment of FCC fear-mongering.
But on the subject of self-importance, Sorkin finds his drama in characters who are good at, enjoy and take pride in their work, whether they're in the White House or do a tv show. The fictional people at Sports Night did seem to have some perspective on the overall importance of their jobs, but their jobs were still important to THEM, and they weren't willing to do something half-assed or underhanded in order to win. Sports Night and now Studio 60 would be really boring if everyone just acted like, "Who cares? It's only tv, not brain surgery."
It's fantasy that lets us believe that people of influence might be interested in doing something well, and not just focusing on profit or power. Sorkin is nourishment for everyone's inner-idealist.
-
Oy...
[Read the article: Feminists just want to have fun]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First of all, in what way is BUST aimed at the Carrie Bradshaws of the world? I just read the latest issue, and there wasn't one mention of Manolo Blahnik, Dolce, or whatever club in Manhattan is trendy.
Second, do we (women) really need to line up for another circular firing squad? Aren't we expending enough bullets on the "mommy wars"?
-
What else are these companies doing?
[Read the article: Breast cancer Barbie]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This piece reminds me of an article I read somewhat recently (can't remember where) about how all these companies are "going pink" to support breast cancer awareness as a PR move. But what these companies are not doing, the article said, is changing any of their policies or practices to actually do something about cancer. I.e., they're still dumping toxic chemicals into the air, earth and water, they're not improving their health care plans, etc. Frankly, I'd rather never see another pink scarf or cookie again if it meant actions besides what often seems like window dressing took place. (Not that I want to insult or denigrate the raising of awareness, I'm just saying that I'd like to be aware of what companies and elected officials are doing to actually prevent cancer and improve women's health, generally. I don't want anyone pulling the pink wool over our eyes.)
-
"Protect women like me"?
[Read the article: What do women need? South Dakota voters debate]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's very sad that the woman in the ad had an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy and decided to have an abortion that she later regretted. It really is. However, I just looked it up, and it turns out that "legal" isn't a synonym for "mandatory." Plus, I'd like to ask her who is worse off: The woman who regrets her legal abortion or the woman who is permanently injured or even killed by her illegal one?
(I wouldn't say there's a black/white answer to that, but it's just something to think about.)
-
"sex positive" vs. prostitution
[Read the article: Diary of a sex slave]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I haven't read the Chronicle's series, but I think it's absurd to suggest that sex positivity leads to prostitution (if Salon's interpretation is correct). First of all, people who demonize sex often turn out to have the biggest peccadilloes, if not illegal tendencies, hidden in their closets. Second, sex positivity, at least to me, indicates an element of consent, that whatever the kink, all parties have agreed to it. The thing about prostitution is that there's a form of coercion involved, whether it's economic coercion or the threat of violence, etc. I'm just not sure I can get behind the argument that sex work is ever empowering because who would do it if they felt they had another viable option? The writer Ariel Levy (I hope I'm getting her name right) was on Colbert the other day, promoting her book "Female Chauvinist Pigs." She made the point that stripping and porn are about fake expressions of sexual pleasure, and they do nothing to really help women enjoy and feel good about sex in real life because we're imitating imitations. I had never heard this issue put quite that way, and I thought she made a good point.
-
Not that contradictory
[Read the article: The wrong egg]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is a fascinating article, well-written, but I'd like to make a point about this passage:
"Confronted with real-life dilemmas, personal and political philosophies devolve into complex outlooks that often appear contradictory: ... a woman who chose to have an abortion in her youth may mourn a miscarriage..."
I don't find this to be contradictory at all. If a woman chooses to have an abortion, presumably it's because she doesn't want to be pregnant. If she has a miscarriage and is sad about it, then obviously she wanted the baby that time. I don't see how these positions are contradictory. Not wanting a child at a certain point in your life doesn't mean you never will.
Just wanted to point that out.
-
Reading about American deaths upsets him...
[Read the article: Memo to Rummy: Don't read the ISG report]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...so he turns to books about WW II? Because no Americans were killed in that war?
-
This is ridiculous.
[Read the article: Penalty Boxer]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]People have other relatives besides children. I happen to have two parents, two brothers, various aunts and uncles and several cousins, plus three nieces. I have no kids, and yet I still have plenty of potential to have relatives lost to a war. (In fact, one of my cousins served in the previous Gulf War.) The point is that Condoleeza Rice is a well-educated person of privilege, as is Barbara Boxer and virtually every other member of Congress and the Bush administration. That's the point. There's a fighting class in this country, and it's not the people Ms Rice (or President Bush, for that matter) associates with. This has nothing to do with anyone's marital status. Even if Ms. Rice were married with children, they would likely not be serving in the military. This is a matter of economic status, not marital status.