Letters to the Editor
Well, that's all for now.
Published Letters: 95 Editor's Choice: 10
-
Choosing a Gap in Generations
[Read the article: The great circumcision debate, continued]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't blame my family for the choice they made to follow convention and have me circumcised as a child. You don't miss what you don't know I suppose. That said, although I have some reservations about it, I think it was absolutely the right choice by my wife and I to not have our sons circumcised. There are no valid reasons that I've seen that support the practice of circumcision other than tradition and societal convention. My reservations about the decision include fear of not knowing how to take care of an uncircumcised penis (I think there's a societal view of them being "dirty" which has given rise to this fear of mine); fear of being different from my sons (and them from me); fear of them being rejected by women (or men) who might view uncircumcised men with disdain; and fear of my parents disapproval and how this decision might make them feel regarding the choice they made for me as an infant. I still have all of those fears for my wonderful sons, actually, but I continue to think it was the right decision, which they can reverse later in life if they so choose. Finally, it is amazing how aware of societal views one is without even realizing it when faced with the decision of whether to circumcise or not. Happily, more and more parents are deciding against circumcision (and I am thankful for our family doctor's support) so I am slightly less worried about my boys facing derision. But, as a circumcised male who was always glad to be on the "popular" side of the discussion, it is enlightening to see, with my sons in mind, how accepted it is for uncircumcised men to be portrayed as unkempt at best. A Seinfeld episode repeat I saw recently is a good example of such, basically, discrimination/misinformation.
-
What Former Planet is Lieberman Living On?
[Read the article: Joe Lieberman, from his indie perch]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Joe Lieberman must have the rank and file of the Democratic Party confused with the Republican true believers who are willing to swallow any lie that makes them feel better about their status in the world. How else can one explain away such blatant falsehoods, both in content and in spirit? And he must be orbiting somewhere out on Pluto if he imagines that an interview like this would do anything but gain him further condemnation from progressives everywhere.
My favorite gems from this interview:
So based on what I have seen [in the press] and with an occasional conversation with a colleague, he did not do well and he diminished his credibility. In most administrations, the president would have asked him to leave or he would have left. So I leave it to them [the White House]. But his credibility is in doubt. And as a former attorney general, that's not a good thing. And therefore -- but I'm only a senator. To me, that's something that the attorney general should take up with the president.
WTF?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
If we picked up as quickly as we could and pulled out -- as a lot of people here [in the Senate] think we should -- it will be a very damaging loss of credibility for us.
Again, WTF?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Honestly, did anyone conduct a serious vote recount of Connecticut's last race for Senator?
-
It would be important ... if it was.
[Read the article: Cheerful boos for Hillary]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm sorry, but perhaps tomorrow after a good night's sleep I'll be able to bring myself to read this Salon article by Michael Scherer ("Cheerful boos for Hillary") but the whatever-you-call-it descriptive text teaser presumably aimed at getting readers interested enough to read the article is such a turn-off I can't dignify it by clicking on the article.
At the YearlyKos convention, the mixed reception for Hillary Clinton is more evidence that the liberal blogosphere might not take sides in the coming Democratic primary.
You've got to be kidding. Look, the "liberal blogosphere" is dead, or should be, the minute it starts self-referentially and self-importantly referring to itself as "the liberal blogosphere" which is presumed to be so monolithic that it may or may not (Oooh, tell us more!) "take sides" regarding anything. [For the blissfully uninformed, does "the liberal blogosphere" have a uniform, a dresscode, a health care plan participants can buy into, a union, a certification program, a retirement plan, or a continuing education requirement?] Honestly, please lay off the Kool-Aid and save the self-justifying behind-the-scenes blogo-gossip for Blog World magazine (a title I'm making up in hopes that it doesn't actually exist) or whatever publication the liberal blogosphere (and perhaps the conservative blogosphere as well) reads these days.
Harrumph ... I'm going to bed.