Letters to the Editor
Learned Hand
Published Letters: 25 Editor's Choice: 1
-
T
[Read the article: Why the T in LGBT is here to stay]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]GLB is primarily about what you do in private. T is very much about what you do in public. Importantly in the context of this bill, GLB is about what you do at home and T is about what you do at the office.
I don't think it is reasonable for an employer to fire someone for stuff they do at home that does not affect work. Similarly I don't think it is reasonable for an employee to burden an employer because of the employee's sexual desires.
If T all of a sudden becomes a protected class, like race, employers are going to encounter all sorts of situations where their hands are tied in unpleasant ways.
Imagine an airline hiring for a check-in clerk. They hire a man, based at least in part on his professional appearance. As soon as he is hired, he announces that he is in fact a she and will be appearing in female dress. Now, there are a wide variety of scenarios that can result from this. She might be equally professional looking and everything might be fine. She might also be dressing for the first time and be horrifying to a manager expecting someone serving the public to look polished and professional. She might also just be a TV out for some kicks.
The business has no way of determining which of these is the case, and if T is a protected class, it might be very difficult for the employer to do anything at all, including trying to determine whether the employee is really a member of the protected class.
Now, one could argue that she should only dress if she was hired while dressing or any number of other compromises. I am a lawyer, and I can't even imagine a law that could adequately protect T's (in terms of public, rather than private, behavior and dress) without just making them into a protected class. Any compromise would just be impossible to write into an enforceable law. Either the corner cases expand to the point that the protection means very little, or the protection becomes paramount to the point that the compromise is effectively overturned.
In my mind the distinction here is all about public vs private behavior. Your boss should not be able tell you whose genitals you are allowed to suck. Your boss should be able to enforce a dress code.
-
Wanting women
[Read the article: Apparently I'm a bisexual mom]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]LW is in the same boat every married man is in. We feel that way about other women all the time. It's just part of being married for men. Apparently it is going to be a part of married life for some women as well.
Here is what we do: fantasize, masturbate, use porn and take every day as it comes. Don't be afraid to look (although you might have to work on your skills in hiding the looks) and just remember that you agreed not to cheat when you got married.
If millions of men can get through each day wanting to sleep with at least ten of the women they saw that day (and not acting on those desires), so can you.
-
Let's all take turns
[Read the article: My letter to the most important man in American politics]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am with those who urge that the first in line position rotate.
Yes, having New Hampshire first means retail politics. Having Hawaii or Rhode Island first would mean the same thing.
In any case, I don't think that retail politics is the highest good. Even more than retail politics, having New Hampshire first means that the candidates have to be appealing to people in New Hampshire. I understand that NH is changing, but in the past that meant that candidates had to be relatively conservative and overly concerned with rural issues.
We already have the electoral college making sure that rural issues are disproportionately important. We don't need a rural state imposing its values even more strongly.
I am much more interested in a scheme that puts a state that is more representative of the US first. That means allowing people who live in cities influence the election in terms appropriate to their representation in the country.
It is absurd that the citizens of the most populous states have very little to say about who the candidates should be. If retail politics is the goal, have a lottery for the first state to have its primary and enforce a seven or ten day waiting period for the next primary. Even if the first state is California, I guarantee that the candidates will spend all their time there. Ads will of course be more important, but the candidates will spend plenty of time talking to individuals, just as they do now.
-
Because they don't like having jobs?
[Read the article: "30 Reasons Girls Should Call It a Night"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]These college aged women are going to be pretty shocked when they find out how many employers will look at Facebook as part of the hiring process.
-
Very Inspiring
[Read the article: Waterboarding is not simulated drowning -- it is drowning]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If you aren't already a professional writer, you should become one. That was amazing.
I thought it was strongest in the more descriptive first two thirds where I was stunned by the powerful and short sentences and paragraphs.
The last third was obviously great for people like me who already agree with you, but I think the flourishes might be best left off when trying to convince others.