Letters to the Editor
Kevin C
Published Letters: 142 Editor's Choice: 23
-
I have to come down on the side of the sanctimonious
[Read the article: Shaming Jamie Lynn Spears]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Is it so hard to believe that parents don't want their daughters to be having sex at 16 much less pregnant? Whether she used birth control or not, unless she was visited by the angel Gabriel at some point a few months ago she was having sex (with an adult apparently).
So yeah, maybe it is a little harsh, but why is disapproval stomach-turning? Society uses opprobrium to send a message--in this case, being pregnant at 16 isn't a good idea.
-
Gold
[Read the article: The unhappiness of Woodrow Wilson]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ok, goldbugs--let's go through gold as an asset.
1. It is shiny
2. It's easy to work with
3. It doesn't pay interest
4. It peaked in real terms in the 80's at over $2k in today's money
So basically if you bought in the 80s as a hedge against inflation you're still way way behind.
Hyperinflation destroys the middle class and the poor--3% a year inflation doesn't destroy anything.
As for the poster that claims that higher prices for importing things from Canada is bad AND that thes same factors hurt US manufacturing, all I can say is that you should avoid arguing two points that contradict each other.
Asset-backed currency causes real pain when an economy adjusts to external shocks--and generally not to the financiers. Let's go back to a plea from over 100 years ago--"If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we shall fight them to the uttermost, having behind us the producing masses of the nation and the world. Having behind us the commercial interests and the laboring interests and all the toiling masses, we shall answer their demands for a gold standard by saying to them, you shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."
-
Real interest rates
[Read the article: The unhappiness of Woodrow Wilson]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Returning to the point that inflation destroys the poor and middle class--first of all, as said before, inflation is good for those in debt. That encompasses the poor and middle class in the US for sure (although less so for the poor).
Anyone who saves in a concerted way using financial assets that pay interest (i.e. not gold), is usually able to make money in real terms. Interest rates are generally assumed to consist of two parts--the part compensating you for inflation and some real return. The real return isn't always positive (which makes debt cheaper and stimulates the economy) so you won't always keep up with inflation, but that, in turn encourages people to borrow and spend which should theoretically stimulate the economy. In a situation where inflation doesn't exist or there is deflation you always have a tight monetary policy because it is difficult to have negative interest rates on a large scale. So mild, predictable inflation greases the skids of an economy, generally speaking.
Yeah, the Fed has presided over booms and busts (including the Great Depression), but there were certainly numerous (and severe) panics before the Fed came into being.
-
Clinton cold to the press?
[Read the article: Clinton looks calm, composed despite bad poll news]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But they are and were so nice to her and Bill over the years. I mean from the NY Times making up Whitewater to Chris Matthews' hatred, what's not to like?
I'm sure that the press won't let their personal pet peeves intrude into their coverage--like they were evenhanded with "dishonest" Gore.
-
Skypillar
[Read the article: Our new friend is a racist -- should we dump him?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is obvious that you have had personal experience with racism in people you are close with, but I'm not sure sanctimony works all that well on people who aren't as invested in the relationship as one's father is.
I think you should ask yourself several things:
1. Do you really believe, as you seem to, in "thought crimes?" Thinking something bad is tantamount to a harmful action? The LW's friend managed to go years without even tipping off the heightened racism-dar of the LW and husband so perhaps it isn't having all that much practical impact in any of their lives...
2. If the LW were to take any of the actions that you suggest, what would she accomplish except, perhaps for making HERSELF feel better? So she, by confronting him, manages to change his mind despite the more likely outcome of pissing him off and making him defensive--what then? The black person at the donut shop gets a tip regardless of whether he is a racist or not. He's not lynching people or burning crosses, so that won't stop. Perhaps the LW can feel more smug, but that doesn't really benefit society.
3. What has the 60's generation really wrought with sanctimony? Yes, women and minorities have significantly more rights--but that was obtained through changing legislation and taking practical steps. It didn't require eliminating racist thoughts. Coded racism still works in elections, though, and we seem to be able to consistently elect right-wing idiots despite (or perhaps because of) the preachiness of 60's idealists.
4. When it comes right down to it, how does the LW taking any of your suggested actions improve the lives of a single black person in any tangible way?
I suppose my point is that the LW and your discomfort may be impacted by getting the racists in your lives to shape up, but I really can't see the benefit to an actual minority. That's not to say that it wouldn't be good to have these racists change their attitudes, but practically speaking one should admit that the likely beneficiaries of their change of heart would primarily be the LW, her husband (and in your case, you).