Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 119 Editor's Choice: 12
-
I think this season may help race relations
[Read the article: Race to the bottom]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm with mlacabe. By grouping the teams by race, America will get a chance to see the DIFFERENCES in people within each of the groups. For example, we saw Sekou being cast as "the lazy black male", but because everyone on the tribe is black, we can see it for what it is - there's usually at least one PERSON that slacks off. And someone here in the comments said "like no one else ever takes breaks". They have to show us SOME reason why he would get voted out. That's what they showed us for Sekou; for Stephannie, it was that she didn't "belong" to any of the sub-tribes. We usually only see our own group (whatever it might be - race, generation, religion, etc.) as having differences, and other groups as being all the same.
And regarding Jeff Probst calling attention to Sekou and Nate making the decision of who to vote out, I don't see that as anything racial at all. He's pointing this out to the other tribemates so that they can see where they stand in the pecking order. And the fact that in this case it was "men vs women" makes it even more dramatic, since the women have the advantage of the numbers. This kind of happens every single tribal council. Remember he also brought up the chicken issue at the beginning, too - to foster animosity between the tribes. Makes for better TV.
Finally, all the naysayers have been forgetting the fact that for several seasons now, the players get "mixed up" pretty quickly. They won't be segregated for long, is my prediction.
-
What about the numbers?
[Read the article: More women living sans spouse]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Did anyone read the source article? Apparently they looked at women "15 and older" for this study. Yes, FIFTEEN. No mention was made whether they only included emancipated minors or if they included all minors, including all of your average everyday high school students, to calculate the percentage of 49% vs 51%, married vs unmarried. Frankly, I'm wondering if they chose the age of 15 specifically to skew the resulting percentage.
On another topic of numbers, I can't believe no one has challenged "Ben Dover"s comment about how he knows several men who have alimony payments of $25,000 PER MONTH. That's $300k per year! Yeah, I believe THAT.
-
They left something out
[Read the article: Federal abortion ban roundup]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Don't jerk your knee yet. I have some points for both sides.
So, how exactly is it reasonable that intact dilation and extraction is considered so "morally repugnant" due to the possibility of "fetal pain" that it must be banned outright by the Supreme Court, but intact dilation and evacuation (where the fetus is chopped to bits in the womb, and then extracted) is still allowed? The answer is, it's NOT reasonable. It seems to me that this other procedure should be considered the more morally repugnant, if moral repugnance is going to be the criteria for lawmaking. And yet, it doesn't have that tug-at-your-heartstrings effect, does it? Or at least, not yet!
Another point. According to the SF Chronicle's article, this alternate procedure "involves inserting medical instruments into the uterus multiple times, potentially increasing the risk of bleeding, infection and patient discomfort". So, there's a POTENTIAL increased risk of bleeding, infection, and "discomfort" with this alternate procedure? I can understand why the intact D&Extraction might not be considered "medically necessary" if the alternative is only the possibility of infection and discomfort. All the more reason why this OTHER procedure should be banned instead. Or, in addition to.
But. Banning BOTH procedures WOULD put an undue burden on women seeking abortion. And there's nothing to stop Congress from now attacking that procedure on the grounds I've just mentioned. Undue burden, anyone?
And, it still comes down to the final word, that Congress, not being medical experts, has no business making medical decisions. They're practicing medicine without a licence, if you ask me. All it takes is one good challenge, and this law WILL be overturned. I'm half-tempted to get pregnant myself, just to be that challenge. And if I have to give birth before the issue's decided, I'd give custody of the product to one of these five yahoos. Probably Kennedy, the one who should be more reasonable, but wasn't.
-
And now to rebut Pedestrian0
[Read the article: Federal abortion ban roundup]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I want to rebut a couple of things Pedestrian0 led off with.
He said:
Susan Estrich, Fox News: Congress decided not to cherry-pick medical experts, and reached beyond the College of Obstetrics. The AMA, and the vast majority of doctors and nurses, oppose this procedure.
I say:
First, I say "cite your sources" for your "vast majority". Second, what do nurses' opinions have to do with this? How do newspaper carriers feel about it? And third, here's what the AMA ACTUALLY has to say about it:
"According to the scientific literature, there does not appear to be any identified situation in which intact D&X is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion, and ethical concerns have been raised about intact D&X. The AMA recommends that the procedure not be used unless alternative procedures pose materially greater risk to the woman. The physician must, however, retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within standards of good medical practice and in the best interest of the patient."
Link to
ama-assn.org/apps/pf_new/pf_online?f_n=browse&doc=policyfiles/HnE/H-5.982.HTM
for the full text.
He said:
Bitch Ph.D.: Your legislators (aka white males) have decided that fetuses are still non-citizens (and can be killed for any reason) but that it is inhumane to deliver the head out of the womb before crushing it.
I say:
The head is NOT out of the womb. That's the whole point. The point is to compress the skull to pass through the cervix easier. Once the head is out, the rest of the fetus is already out. If the head were already out, there'd be no reason to compress it, would there? That would not be an abortion.