Letters to the Editor
lburgler
Published Letters: 50 Editor's Choice: 1
-
some mugs are just ugs
[Read the article: How looks can kill]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]some people are just ugly, and realize they're ugly, and thanks to plastic surgery, that's no longer a death sentence. and maybe jacko WANTS to look like a freakshow. After all, he admits P.T. Barnum is one of his role models.
p.s. is there a WAY that a person looks to OTHER people? i see some of the same people daily. depending on my mood or theirs, what they're wearing or their mannerisms, they look different all the time. from one minute to the next, from trillions (if not infinite) angles, just like i look to myself in the mirror.
perhaps the implication that there is a fixed WAY that people ought to look is the problem.
-
what about the youth
[Read the article: The end of menstruation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]being 24, i'm suddenly a lot older than the starlets in gossip magazines i've periodically glanced at for about 8 years.
let me preemt accusations of paramnesiac nostalgia, and say that i don't think THEN was a SIMPLER time.
i do wonder, though, what particular variety my younger counterparts encounter THESE DAYS.
and i recall being in gym class in 6th grade, wearing shorts that showcased my "all natural femininity"
and i recall a precocious 8th grader (who in hindsight was pretty cheap looking, with badly bleached hair and racoon eyes) talking about how "gross" her stubble was, and how "badly" she needed to shave her legs.
funnily enough, it had never occured to me that I OUGHT to shave my legs. and suddenly i was no longer a child. and i was ugly, hairy, rustic, and clueless.
and even though, in hindsight, that girl was tacky and would never be my role model now, then, i felt absolutely lowered by her condescension. it took years of damage before i regained my sense of direction,
so when we sell period eradication, are the more clueless among us going to hear the tacit message, that periods are for the clueless, and that they OUGHT not to have them?
and does Wyeth, who presumably employs women, expect exactly that reaction?
i shudder to think...
-
diversity amongst white men?
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton, the first Latina in chief?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]a white man can't be female, without extensive surgery, anyway, but a male person can be feminine, and vice versa.
so maybe it's almost none of us that count as "the man."
and if masculine/feminine means a difference between the fucker and the fucked, then these days, it's only a very small group of CEO's and technocrats who are the men.
-
oprah a metaphor?
[Read the article: And they're auf!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]do they really go on oprah when they win?
-
a vote for Democrats is a vote for pornography
[Read the article: McCain apes Bush on Iraq, as Dems stand passively by]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks to governor Romney's edifying wisdom, we know now what caused the slumber that landed us in this unwinnable war in that godforsaken place: pornography!
Sadly, as much as blaming everything bad on pornography should sound the alarm for early-onset alzheimers, Romney has not been diagnosed. Why not?
Because, anyone who has binged on pornography, male or female, understands the sick feeling that results from stumbling upon one of the less consensual videos, with some poor trashy girl half crying as some poor trashy asshole does unspeakable things to her- and it's sold as entertainment.
And in that vertiginous moment, one wants to run to the no-spin zone. Somewhere that doesn't question "grand old" values, not anymore, and not at this price.
One suddenly understands that pornography, in as much as it is cruelty-as-entertainment, and not just playful cruelty, is of a piece with the disease that has us killing in our sleep.
And that's why we can't vote against Republicans. Because a vote against them makes our heads spin.
What we need is to determine the difference between Republican porn and Democratic porn, instead of lumping both on the latter side, just because the former has constipated values. Questioning values doesn't result in nihilism, it results in hot sex, and true love.
-
INNER revolution?
[Read the article: Dive-bar dharma ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"It's not about feel-good, peace, love and granola," says Levine. "It's about an inner revolution."
If "nothing happens in a vacuum," then there is no such thing as an "inner" revolution. It's the whole shebang or bust.
The 'personal is political' wasn't forgotton, it was swallowed up.
There is no revolution without sexual revolution, sure; but there is no revolution without revolution, period.
-
RE: For-Profit Medicine?
[Read the article: The quest for universal healthcare]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The usual argument against keeping insurance premiums and drug costs high is that they create essential incentives for R&D (research and development), which makes us safer.
Unfortunately, drug companies spend about 25% of their budgets on Marketing, compared to 10-15% on R&D.
Many of the drugs marketed are "me-too" drugs, whose patents have expired, and cost nothing for R&D.
Most of the R&D in the U.S. is actually funded by taxpayer dollars, in state-funded academic settings.
Medical students are constantly bombarded with the sleazy facts in Bioethics classes, but it's not their fault.
We need to stop assuming there is some "good reason" behind America's mysterious ways, and realize how educated people around the world and in our own borders perceive us: as greedy, conniving, tacky...well... pigs :)
You want sources? Contact Salon re:lburgler. I have hundreds of peer-reviewed articles for you. Try "Dr. Drug Rep" for a start.