Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 217 Editor's Choice: 9
-
@AKA Smith - words that run a country. Not words that come from it.
[Read the article: But see, some women ARE bitches]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The U.S. Constitution is just words.
No it's not just words. It's laws that govern how we act, and violating those laws can lead to ruin, death or worse. The usage of words in popular culture doesn't not have that power. Not anywhere near it.
Those words and the futher interpretation of them by the judiciary guard our freedoms and our rights through social upheaval.
And those words have been amended and changed through social upheaval. And that social upheaval has been due, at it's root, to economic change. Either directly through prosperity and depression, or indirectly through the ravages and privations of war.
The women's movement was built upon the writing and scholarship of women and men who were concerned about the rights of men and women.
And that movement only changed things were it actually accomplished things physically - organizing, marching, protesting, voting.
Critiquing language and intellectual scholarship has more than earned its place in moving the world forward.
Intellectual scholarship, yes - as far as that scholarship actually resulted in any real-world changes.
But language critiquing, by itself? I don't see it. Have any specific examples, of how critiquing the use of a word improved women's circumstances more than physical action or economic change?
-
@AKA Smith - yep, work was taken back after WWII
[Read the article: But see, some women ARE bitches]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And then after the war, the government decided full employment for men was more important than the women who had once been needed for the war effort. They began a propaganda campaign (using words and images) to send women back home. Women's wages dropped sharply and they were told that their jobs should go to men who needed to support families.
Absolutely.
But that door, once opened, couldn't stay shut forever. The women remembered and their daughters remembered, and it emboldened them to try more and do more with their lives, and force that door open once again.
-
@AKASmith - Culture and society
[Read the article: But see, some women ARE bitches]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]From webster:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/culture
culture: "the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generation"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/society
society: "an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another b: a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests"
So to paraphrase - the society is the group of people, and the culture is the way that group of people interact.
-
Absolutely dead-on.
[Read the article: Microsoft kills books search engine because books aren't fun]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Trying to restrict and control the free flow of information for profit, and trying to eliminate possible information flows that *don't* directly lead to money or control - these behaviors are in Microsoft's DNA.
As opposed to Google's, which is letting information for the benefit of all, including those most aiding the free flow. And coming up with more and more useful apps for that purpose. Maps, gmail, notebooks, docs, iGoogle, and on and on.
Information really does want to be free. As long as Microsoft continues attempting to selectively trap and put a yoke on it, it's efforts will be doomed to failure.
-
"RFK" is Hillary's "sweetie", then?
[Read the article: A new low in Clinton bashing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Obama said an insensitive thing, and took a lot of heat for it. Hillary said an insensitive thing, and is taking a lot of heat for it.
I don't recall an excessive amount of understanding in these pages, for the innocent intent of Obama's statement.
Does it simply not work when the shoe's on the other foot? That hardly seems fair, don't you think?
Sure, Hillary wasn't calling for Obama's assassination, any more than Obama was trying to oppress women. But inflamed reactions in the middle of a heated contest are part of the territory.
Much worse for Hillary, is that this statement was part of her rationale for staying in the race - which means she actually thought about this before saying it. And this complete and total tone-deafness in *prepared statements* (!!!) also makes her even less fit for office, in my opinion.
But the voters have already decided, we're just waiting for Hillary to catch up before we can all move forward towards the White House.
-
Looking forward to a return to competence.
[Read the article: Will Obama's "new kind of politics" involve new policy ideas?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Perhaps there isn't much paper difference between Obama and Clinton's policies. But the difference between Bush's policies and Obama's, both on paper and in action, will be night and day.
Or Bush and Clinton's policies, for that matter. But the Democratic primary is basically all over but the shoutin'.
-
@ ShawnWM
[Read the article: Will Obama's "new kind of politics" involve new policy ideas?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Call everyone a sexist, play victim and then blame your primary defeat on the media.
That's the card. Nothing more need be said. Hillary's a desperate sore loser and a clown but that's being redundant."
Fixed for you.
-
Who says candidates *aren't* "sucking up" to women?
[Read the article: Why political candidates should be sucking up to women]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It seems that whenever a consensus emerges among a large group of women, politicians pay clear attention to that group and that consensus. Case in point: MADD.
-
Point 1: A Hillary victory has been MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE since February
[Read the article: The other 18 million]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The most destructive, divisive refrain in the attacks on Clinton has been the demand since February for her to drop out of the race.
Ms. Walsh - since February, it has been mathematically impossible for her to win.
That's the main reason why there has been this "divisive refrain". The only think divisive about it, has been that the Clinton dedication to being divided from reality.
Losing by 1, 10 or 100 points is the same as losing by 1000 points. They lost. That simple. Hillary lost in February. And since then, the outcome has never been in doubt.
And as for the Jesse Jackson comparison - did Democrats or Republicans win the White House in 1984 and 1988? Are you sure that's the comparison you want with Hillary?
I understand it's painful to see your favorite candidate lose. But there was simply ****no point**** in her running after it became ****impossible by math**** for her to win. Which is why it has been so frustrating to see her put the nation through this futility, while we're staring down the barrel of what could effectively be a 3rd Bush term.