Letters to the Editor
Kevin C
Published Letters: 142 Editor's Choice: 23
-
Concept me and my SE use of "unopened pistachio"
[Read the article: Do you have to be gay to tell another guy his eyes are pretty?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I met my current spousal equivalent of 11 years (oops, I forgot our anniversary which is either yesterday or tomorrow, plus it has been kind of on and off for some months of that 11 years) at work--I was 25 he was 23, but just out of school and seemed much younger. He started work with another guy out of the same university the same day. I thought the other one was the gay one, but flirted with them both. Kind of reckless on my part as a technically more senior title-holder, but really in practice in the consulting world, it was more like a college dorm environment than a workplace.
Anyhow, my current bf signalled to me that he was interested through two taps on both sides of my shoulder while I was walking in front of him. Without that, I would have bought that the fraternity boy that talked a good game about hitting it with chicks was really interested...
The other guy continually sent out mixed messages and eventually we decided that he was an "unopened pistachio." The concept is that in your average bag of pistachios there are going to be a few unopened ones. You can make the effort to open it up, and there may be a delicious pistachio for you to eat (or it may be one of those shrivelled up ones that taste horrible). The point is there is a whole bag of opened pistachios that require much less effort and you can generally see which ones are the bad ones. Guys like "Mike" are the same way, so they generally aren't worth your time unless flirting with them somehow entertains you.
Stick to the multitude of available guys and/or see how far you can push the semi-closeted/straight attention seekers (on a catch and release basis if that is what is needed). Generally, though, if you understand that it is all in fun you don't give them the power that they want.
Or maybe I'm just a sociopath too, who knows.
-
LBS/Hudson
[Read the article: Cindy Sheehan's wrong turn]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Now, to start I admit that Castro is almost certainly better than Batista and Chavez was elected with over 61% of the vote last time, but I don't think Chavez is necessarily a good example of the democratic process.
Things he is proposing/and has done (and while people read this, think how you'd react if Bush did any of these things):
Changing the constitution so he can stay in power indefinitely
Closed down a television channel that didn't support him by not renewing its license (although the channel in question was admittedly strongly against him, but a Democrat wouldn't close Fox News)
Pressured another television channel to stop criticizing him
Used the army to break a general strike against his administration (and he claims he provoked the strike in the first place)
Stuffed the electoral council with supporters
Purged the army of commanders he felt were "disloyal"
Expanded the Supreme Court from 20 to 32 justices so he could pack it with allies(admittedly FDR tried something similar)
That's not to say that the man is evil, necessarily, but he is far from a beacon for the US to aspire to. Plus he goes out of his way to criticize and goad the US. I don't think that it is out of line in the least to say that he isn't a good person to make common cause with if you want to gain the respect and buy in of the majority of US voters (which, after all is how one gets to rule in this country).
-
The spirit of the 60s
[Read the article: Cindy Sheehan's wrong turn]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"I knew the spirit of the 60s was dead, but who knew just how dead?"
So what was the culminating achievement of the spirit of the 60s, the election of President McGovern (ok, '72, but that is the candidate that to me mostly embodies the "spirit of the 60s" as I believe the commenter interprets it).
The 60s gave us progressive political achievements, but also a lot of other things. Additionally, a lot of what was accomplished was due to Johnson's political horse-trading rather than a Kennedy's idealism...
-
The cuckold in the room
[Read the article: Women want brawn for now, brains for good?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I only looked at 3 pages of letters, so this may be a repeat, but honestly the woman is better off if she can get impregnated by the muscle guy and have the sensitive guy raise the kid as his own.
So maybe sensitive guy has a few kids in there too, but the woman is definitely better off evolutionarily with some fit genes in her offsprings' mix.
-
Follow up
[Read the article: Cindy Sheehan's wrong turn]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]LBS,
I have no disputes with the fact that the US has meddled in Latin American affairs. However, Venezuela is not necessarily one of the major victims of this meddling. For example, Venezuela nationalized its oil industry in 1976 under Perez (who, by the way, Chavez led a coup against in 1992 when he was elected a second time), and if that wasn't a time for interference I don't know what would have been (at least if you were Exxon, you would have thought that way).
I would challenge you to show that the coup against Chavez was caused by the US. The proximal cause was a group of Chavez loyalist semi-militia folks firing into a crowd of demonstrators and killing 21 of them. Now the US shamefully didn't condemn or do anything about the coup against an elected government, but I don't think there is much evidence that the US instigated said coup (aside from Chavez' claims that the US is out to get him). Note that Chavez has not always been particularly popular--poverty rose during the early years of his presidency and GDP shrank. Those things have been reversed thanks to the high oil price, but when the coup and general strikes happened he was not in as good a position as he is now.
That's not to say that Chavez hasn't done things for the poor--he most definitely has. My issues with him are his disrespect for the rule of law and/or his apparent desire to set himself up as a strongman.