Letters to the Editor
Chris W
Published Letters: 54 Editor's Choice: 6
-
20 years sounds good
[Read the article: Attack of the "seething sapphic septet"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]To provide one of the article's "different perspectives" (that the closest thing to a point of view Carol Lloyd expresses in that text), 20 years sounds just right for those women.
And that is even implying that they actually were taunted by the guy. See it in the context of every potential brawl - the wise (and right) thing to do is to deescalate, not to escalate. Especially if you are in the vast majority. And you definitely refrain from violence, and you very very definitely never pull a weapon.
OTOH the women might more likely get something like 3 or 5 years. And provided they do time in an environment suitable for violent criminals, society will get along with that.
One hopes they will learn something from the experience.
-
a real classic of cognitive dissonance
[Read the article: Maternity care is a money loser]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The facts are clearly spelt out.
Cost of malpractice suits.
But apparently, the esteemed broadsheet author is completely unable to see the obvious solution.
The US does regulation by civil courts. Where other states have regulatory and oversight agencies for quality control, the US relies on the ever present threat of ruinously expensive malpractice suits.
The core problem with this approach is that third parties - mainly lawyers, but also affected patients - suck *huge* sums of money out of the system. To stop this you have to stop regulation by lawyer. Of course this will cause horrible howling by the malpractice lawyers, but in the end it will result in better care for all. Except of course, most malpractice lawyers, who will have to find other occupations, but, well, thats too bad.
One approach would be to do away with punitive damages and sharply restrict pain&suffering to token sums. Add in decent objective standards for measuring actual damages, and you will be mostly there. Ideal, of couzrse, would be doing asway with jury trials in these cases alltogether, to remove the sympathy verdict effect, but I guess that would too much to ask from Americans.
As a replacement have a state or federal agency tasked with quality oversight over the health secor, and give it personnel and teeth.
But good Democrats and leftwing Americans just *love* trial lawyers. For reasons I'll never understand. So nobody ever thinks the unthinkable.
-
nonsensical claims
[Read the article: Defending women from "dowry death"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The nonsense some people here are spouting off is truly embarassing.
Is is completely baseless to argue that European nations (the Dutch and Frnch were named) have or practice a presumption of guilt in criminal matters. The opposite is true. The presumption of innocence is a basic human right, and places like France even have it in their constitution.
Some Americans here, apparently, feel qualified by - or despite of - their complete lack of knowledge how different (civil law based) legal systems work to spout the most egregious nonsense. It might be helpful to read a good book - or, at least, the respective wikipedia article - before claiming expertise on such matters.
-
great
[Read the article: Iraqi women sell sex for survival]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]the only thing press attention will bring here is more repression against the women. A crack down - thats what always happens in such situations. But, that's *exactly* what you wanted, isn't it, Ms Floyd-Clark ?
If you want to help, find a charity of your choice and send money. But by pressing hot buttons in the press and raising a stink, you are just contributing to the malady.
If there's one thing I hate it's American puritanism masked as progressive.
-
female role models
[Read the article: Make way for Muslim Girl]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]well, an Afghanistan politician seems to be a safe choice here. Why don't they look a little closer to home ?
One example that comes to mind is noted Muslim author (and former Salon correspondent) Asra Nomani, who is doing some very interesting things with respect to the role of women in Islam. And she's doing them right here in America, thereby getting tons of flak from American muslims, who apparently don't like the boat being rocked at all.
Now *that* would be a role model for Broadsheet's newest favorite magazine....
-
the politics of personal destruction
[Read the article: Giuliani's loyalty to an accused priest]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]the politics of personal destruction at their finest.
Isn't there anything substantial you can say about or of Giuliani ?
He employs an old friend as consultant ? Who has never been even charged, not to mention convicted, of any crime ? Who is possibly anonymously mentioned in an obscure report of an institution best known for beeing able to indict ham sandwiches ?
And even assumed (a remote, slim chance) that those more than 20 years old unsubstantiated allegations are true - do you really advocate a lifelong ban on any work for anyone ever accused of something like this ?
I'm no fan of Giuliani, but this smear piece of an article, and by extension its authors, disgsts me.