Letters to the Editor
KayWWW
Published Letters: 206 Editor's Choice: 75
-
They Even Fumbled The Cars They Had
[Read the article: Ford fumbles the future]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In 2000, I was shopping for a compact car. Based on my research, I'd narrowed my choices down to two - the Toyota Corolla and the Ford Focus. The Focus had everything I wanted - great gas mileage (better than many of today's hybrids), reasonable power and space, even a hatchback option which the Corolla didn't have. On paper, the Focus was the clear choice.
I went to the Ford dealership, and as soon as I mentioned the Focus, I was dismissed. No one wanted to bother selling me one of "those" cars. They couldn't even be bothered to find one to test drive. I was already wary of buying an American car, after hearing tales of woe from my friends with American compact cars, but I might have taken a chance on the Focus if Ford had tried to change my mind. They didn't even try.
I bought a Corolla.
-
Is It Cowardly? Or Sensible?
[Read the article: Letters to the Editor update]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I can understand that Salon wants to avoid the spam, rants and personal attacks that are common on many parts of the web. It's probably easier for someone to post those kinds of things if they can do so anonymously.
But I think there are also good reasons to avoid posting one's real first and last name. I don't always share my political and social views with my co-workers, sometimes with good reasons. I've lived and worked in places where admitting your views might not get you fired, but would definitely make you unwelcome in the lunch room. Therefore, I'm cautious about what I post under my real name (and since I have an uncommon name, I have to be more cautious than someone named John Smith). There are things that I've posted online that I wish I could take back - not because I regret my beliefs, but because I'm not sure an employer would think the same way.
Maybe that's cowardly. But I'm not a political activist, and my ability to get a job in the future is more important to me than my ability to post letters at Salon. I realize that people who post anonymously or use "handles" will still be able to post, but I think Salon will lose more than the rants and attacks by making this change.
-
Not Just Jumping Through Hoops
[Read the article: Thugs for puppies]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Several people have talked about animal testing as if it's just "jumping through hoops", to appease the FDA. That's not the whole story. Some animal testing has been excessive (especially 10-20 years ago) but it's very difficult to test drugs without using animals. Cell assays and computer models just aren't the same. You have to test a drug in a whole system - drugs often react differently in an animal than they do in an isolated cell in a petri dish. Animals aren't perfect models for humans, but they're the best we have. Many drugs end up being toxic to other parts of the system - a heart drug that affects the liver, a cancer drug that causes kidney disease. Unfortunately, it's hard to predict these kinds of reactions, even with the best cell assays. It would be impossible to do these kinds of preliminary tests on people, unless drug trials with 50% mortality were considered acceptable. Animals are the best choice we have right now.
-
What Makes An Athlete Famous?
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dan Marino? Who's he? King Kaufman talks about him as if he's universally known, but I've never heard of him. To me, he sounds like a guy who makes pizza. This probably seems impossible to the sports fans who read this column, but to someone who's not a football fan, the name means nothing. The only football player I can think of off hand is Joe Namath, and that's because he was in a bunch of commercials. Dan Marino is "famous" to football fans, not to non-fans. It's just that there are a lot of football fans, so sports fans just assume he's "universally" known. Most people who aren't football fans only know football players because they do commercials or appear in the tabloids, not because of the way they play.
It's the same for skating. Whether Michelle Kwan will become famous outside of "skating fans" probably has more to do with her endorsement deals and her public image than the number of medals she won. Tara Lipinski disappeared off the earth, while Nancy Kerrigan (who never won a gold medal either) parlayed her moment of infamy into commercials and commentating jobs, which kept her in the public eye. Kerrigan is certainly better known than Oksana Baiul, who won the gold medal that year.
Only a few figure skaters ever become famous outside of the figure skating world. People vaguely remember their names, but most of them disappear into obscurity - gold medals or not. If Michelle Kwan becomes a skating "celebrity", she will probably be remembered longer because of this scandal, not in spite of it.
-
Stepping Stone?
[Read the article: Small gains for women in government]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The absense of women in state and local government is more discouraging than the lack of women at top levels. A reasonable argument could be made that most members of Congress and other high level government officials started their careers decades ago, before many women moved into these jobs. Once women moved up through the ranks, the arguments went, the numbers would rise. But if women aren't making their way into state and local government either - there's something more involved.