Letters to the Editor
swilldog
Published Letters: 184 Editor's Choice: 20
-
Indeed, why bother?
[Read the article: The New York Times weighs in on the "boy crisis"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Having gone to a run-of-the-mill state university (UW-Eau Claire, if you must know), I'll gladly add an "Amen" to the young man's sentiment as to the relative non-difference between an A and a B. For all but the cream of the crop (and those attending more prestigious universities or those who aspire to post-graduate study), the difference between a 3.50 and a 3.00 grade point average is pretty minor.
In fact, I know that many employers shun the uber-achievers. A candidate with a 4.0 average is just as likely to be seen as inflexible and incapable of dealing with failure as someone who might have struggled a bit early in college but managed to graduate with moderate success. One of my former colleagues who was active in recruiting recent grads (for a successful company that competed strongly for top-notch grads) would gather up all the 4.0 GPA resumes and promptly throw them all in the trash. Male or female, for that matter.
Why the difference between male and female students, though? I'm sure there's a myriad of reasons, but somehow I doubt there's an overarching sense of "male entitlement" involved. I didn't give much of a rip about getting straight A's (same as many of my classmates), and the thought of "I'm a guy, so I don't have to try as hard" never once popped into my head.
I think feminism, in its myriad forms, has taught many young women that they need to work a lot harder to get ahead. Sadly, in this male-dominated society, this is probably still true. But the fact that young men don't feel the need to run just as fast on the gerbil wheel is hardly a harbinger of doom. It's just that not nearly as many people are drumming into their heads that a 3.75 GPA won't quite cut it.
And perhaps (hopefully) in the long run this trend in female over-achievement will help balance out our society's patriarchal bent. Alas, my guess is that it'll just churn out more masculine-thinking, must-win women.
-
Thanks for everything, Joe... but...
[Read the article: Lieberman wins!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In all fairness, Joe Lieberman was a reasonably decent Democratic Senator. He could be relied upon to support many issues near and dear to the Democratic base, and for that he should be thanked. In many regards, his absence will be apparent and unfortunate.
Having said that, Lieberman had outstayed his welcome. It seems his elevation to Vice Presidential nominee in 2000 was the beginning of the end for Joe -- his service became less and less toward the people of Connecticut (and Democrats nationwide) and more toward "what's good for Joe." His nearly falling over himself to announce his "Independent Democrat" bid is testament to his self-serving nature.
During this primary campaign, so many people have been focusing on Lieberman's stance on the war and his many many troubling statements supporting the pResident's little Orwellian experiment in Eurasia as to why Lamont garnered so much support. But for so many of us who supported Ned, the real issue is this: Over and over again, Joe seemed to want the job for himself, and not for those who he represented.
Part of a Senator's job, like it or not, is to support his party. It's one thing to stand on principle for something you believe in, and another thing entirely to actively undermine your party colleagues. And for that reason alone, Joe had to go.
So, Joe, on behalf of many of my fellow Democrats: Please accept this heartfelt thanks for your many years of faithful service. Now don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
-
In answer to your questions, dee lb...
[Read the article: The next New Orleans]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Does Miami have to be destroyed? How about the Northeast - would that be "important" enough? What has to happen so people will stop saying, "That's not my problem"?
Well, let's see:
-- Once Castro finally dies and Cuba becomes the Neocon project du jour, the Republicans can finally wash their hands of Miami.
-- The Northeast? One word for you there: Liberals. Sure, they'll miss Wall Street, but the big money men will simply find another place to set up shop -- some godawful place like Indianapolis (apologies to all Hoosiers out there). And everyone knows that the uberwealthy (the only people who count) make even more money in a bear market than a bull one, so again, no harm no foul.
So what has to happen? Jesus, my friend. Jesus's return on a silver chariot with teddy bears and candy for all the little boys and girls who go to Sunday School. Jesus himself coming down from the heavens telling everyone to wake the &$%* up and smell the rotting corpses.
That's what will have to happen before the mouthbreathers among us wake the hell up and demand something be done.
And no, I don't somehow think that driving a Civic Hybrid somehow absolves me of any blame. This all makes me sick enough to cry some days.
-
even more to the point
[Read the article: Monkey business]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Any politician, in this day and age, that sees fit to openly use a racial epithet (no matter how obscurely French-esque) is boldly announcing to the world his or her incompetence -- or worse, utter disregard for the conventions of a modern civil society. Which to my mind is newsworthy.
Have all the racist thoughts you want -- it's part of human nature to some degree. But if you aspire to be a representative of the people, you might wanna keep your inner Klansman under wraps (pardon the pun!).
Unless, of course, you think doing so will help you with your core constituency. Hrm.... perhaps I've hit on something there...