Letters to the Editor
smallfox
Published Letters: 111 Editor's Choice: 8
-
Lonewolf has a point...
[Read the article: Plus size, minus a few years]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...it's just not universally applicable. Some percentage of people -- kids and adults -- just need someone to smack the twinkie out of their hand and tell them to get off the sofa before they need triple bypass surgery at age 40. For every one of these sorts of people, though, there is a larger cohort of obese people who are eating for psychological reasons, some of which are profoundly difficult to deal with. Telling the 15-year-old who over-eats as a psychological response to abuse that she needs to pull herself together and stop patronizing Torrid just isn't going to work. Really -- what IS so wrong about letting her feel some modicum of self-worth by wearing something other than XXL sweatpants? And where's the comparable outrage over Lane Bryant and Big & Tall?
This is two different issues -- facilitating the emotional, physical, and nutritional needs of obese kids to help them lose weight, and our societal acceptance of unhealthy weight and body perception/vanity sizing, including in fashion. On that second issue I'm the first to say it's way out of hand. I wear a size 4 dress most places, and I am not skinny (upper-mid-range for normal BMI, with some pudge) so I wonder where all the *actual* size 4 girls shop.
-
avast -
[Read the article: "I would want to give my child, like, everything"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I largely agree with you. I don't have any moral qualms about abortion. I'm at a point in my life where if I got pregnant I would have to abort (as it wouldn't be a choice to keep it, I can't say whether this choice would be wrenching or not, though currently I'd say I wouldn't lose any sleep over it). I don't feel the need to judge women who've had an abortion or two, and I think it's grossly, indescribably offensive to equate a tiny clump of parasitic cells with a full-term infant.
That said, I also react viscerally and judgmentally toward women who have had numerous abortions. I don't think it's inconsistent, though, since the reaction is not (for me, anyway) related to the actual reality of abortion. It is more the fact that abortion-as-birth-control demonstrates a complete lack of personal responsibility and respect for one's own body. Abortions cost far more than birth control, and when you've had three, four, five abortions, I can almost guarantee that someone else is footing that bill or greatly subsidizing it. You're sucking up doctor and financial resources that are needed for other people. Likewise putting your body through multiple abortions that could've been easily prevented is irresponsible. Accidents happen while on birth control, even two types of birth control (which you should definitely be using if it happened once all ready), but they don't happen that often.
-
Doesn't pass my cringe-test either.
[Read the article: My baby's for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Blind indoctrination benefits no child, whether that's blind indoctrination into politics, religion, or philosophy. A family's values are imparted a thousand different ways through a child's development; if parents do a good job, that child should have a good idea of what his or her family finds important and right as well as the flip side of the major issues. An 18 year old is old enough to vote and old enough to decide for him/herself whether the family's denomination or political party or candidate is who or what *they* support.
My parents took this approach with politics, believing voting is a private affair and there's no reason to tell your six-year-old who you voted for. Unfortunately they didn't do the same with religion, but to their credit they got it half-right. (And, for what it's worth, I hold very similar political beliefs as my mother, which we now talk about as I'm in my 20s. I wholly rejected the religious teachings I was forced into as a child.)
-
anon -
[Read the article: Can't work for them, can't sue them]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]These are American women working for American companies with American coworkers. What about a war zone gives American non-combatants the excuse to rape fellow non-combatant, non-enemy employees? Exactly how backwardly misogynist and retarded are you?
-
you're still utterly wrong.
[Read the article: Can't work for them, can't sue them]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I happen to love men quite a lot, so the misandry label is inappropriate, though if you want to accuse me of loathing backwater misogynist hicks, this would be relatively accurate.
And as for the "lawlessness" of American contracts in Iraq, how about -- "There are many laws of the United States that have or may have extraterritorial effect. A few of these laws that have invited comment are the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the Export Administration Act of 1979, the Iranian Assets Control Regulations, the Civil Rights Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, drug enforcement laws [etc, etc]"
and - companies based in the United States, employing United States workers, and are in most other respects United-States-based ventures can be subject to U.S. law [paraphrased from "Litigation of International Disputes in U.S. Courts"]
The U.S. government has CHOSEN to deny a fair shake in court for these victims. They have the jurisdiction as well as the right to try the company for liability and damages, they simply elect not to.
But clearly, the actual law and facts make no difference to your hearty endorsement of rape and violence.
-
and as a more specific footnote,
[Read the article: Can't work for them, can't sue them]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In an opinion issued in 2000, the Ninth Circuit held that the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States extended, by definition, federal criminal jurisdiction to areas where American citizens and property needed protection, but where no other government could safeguard those interests effectively, including within foreign countries.
. . . Congress resolved the circuit split by enacting the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000, which authorizes the exercise of jurisdiction by United States courts over members of the armed forces and accompanying civilians who commit criminal offenses outside of the United States.
And *Accompanying civillians" -- Sounds very clearly like jurisdiction, eh?