Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 135 Editor's Choice: 12
-
Good IEEE link, @vondo, and a comment on organizational abilities
[Read the article: "Hacking grannies"? Or "talented programmers"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The IEEE link mentions that women were hired because they could be had for less money. Another thing I remember from a previous discussion on this subject (I wish I could remember where), was that another reason women were hired is because they were considered more detail-oriented than men, more able to focus on the task at hand and not get distracted.
Which leads into @OsamaBinLogin's comments. A male manager of mine, where I was a tech lead (I'm female) commented once about the only other female tech lead he'd had in the past was also very organized, like me. I told him I'd noticed that myself, and that women HAVE to be organized, in order to be taken as seriously as men. Men are considered "big thinkers" and "outside the box", whereas women are considered "flighty" and "not on task".
He thought that was an interesting observation, and vowed to always try to pick a female for tech/project lead positions in the future. I'm not sure that was my point! But, if it gets more women into tech leadership positions, so be it... at least for now!
-
Freedom requiring religion is NONSENSE!
[Read the article: Mitt Romney's ominous verb]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The only way that expression could make sense is if it meant that the only way you could KNOW that you were free, or the only way you could prove to others that you were free, would be by being able to say "look! I'm free to practice my religion. Therefore I'm free!" or "Look! That person over there is free to practice their religion even though it's not the same as mine! That's how free we are here!" The only way it makes sense would be to say "Freedom of religion requires religion." To that I say, "duh!" If religion didn't exist, we wouldn't be free to practice (or not) our own version of it.
And to the person who said that Romney was using "religion" to mean "moral values", that's also hogwash. After all, he said "Freedom requires religion and religion requires freedom." Well, "freedom requires moral values" is patently false. Someone who kills with impunity just because he feels like it obviously doesn't have moral values. And "moral values requires freedom" is also patently untrue. Tienamen Square, Nelson Mandela, any number of examples there.
-
I <heart> Tom Rakewell!
[Read the article: Romney: "Freedom requires religion" ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Someone give that man a star, please...
One thing I would have like to have seen... on error #3 about "during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places"... I would have added "Will altars to Hindu gods be welcome in our public places during the appropriate holidays? Even if they happen to occur on the same days as Christian holidays? What about an altar to Satan - will be welcome in our public places on Christmas Day?"
-
@Uberfemme
[Read the article: Romney: "Freedom requires religion" ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I hope yours was a general comment about nativities and menorahs in public and you weren't addressing me personally on the topic. But either way, maybe I need to explain more.
I personally could not care less about these kinds of displays. In fact, I find them quite festive. However, you and I both know darned well that if I called up City Hall right now and said I wanted to put up a satanic altar on public grounds, there'd be outright refusals if not death threats. And THAT'S why I object to the displays on public grounds paid for by taxpayer money. If you (the royal You, meaning everyone/anyone in this country, not you personally) get to put your symbol there, on public grounds owned by both of us, then *I* should be able to put *MY* symbol there, as well. I'm happy either way - either all allowed or none allowed. But most of the religious types that I have a problem with, in response to my request would sputter and hem and haw and then eventually say "No. Just... No. I get to put mine there but you don't, because that's just wrong." They'll say it's because the country was founded on judeo-christian beliefs, or because there are "more of us than there are of you", and blah blah blah, but that shouldn't matter. It should be either allowed for everyone, or not allowed for anyone. And that's the part that they just don't get.
On the other hand, you're right, there IS a companion part to that. I personally have never TRIED to get a satanic altar put up on City Hall grounds, so I don't REALLY know what would happen. So this point may be moot: putting up the nativity for Christmas but no satanic altar on Halloween or whatever might just be because no one requested it. But, it is also kind of implied oppression. Automatically assuming that the community welcomes a Christmas display but doesn't want a satanic display, and therefore welcomes Christians but not Satanists.
PS, it's nice that we've come far enough to accept JUDEO-Christian beliefs (where it used to be that only Christian was allowed), and in some respects any monotheistic belief system with over a billion adherents (adding Islam to the fray). But there are still lots of other religions that are NOT covered by this "acceptance" in the public sphere in this country. And my point is, if you can't expressly ACCEPT and WELCOME all of them, then you shouldn't be expressly accepting and welcoming only SOME of them.