Letters to the Editor
GinaD
Published Letters: 6
-
My sainted junior high civics teacher
[Read the article: Guns on a plane]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I too had a sainted social studies teacher back in junior high. She taught us from a basement classrom that also held our small junior high libary. Yes, she was a "Miss," having never married, and lived with her sister (also a "Miss") who taught the first graders upstairs.
Miss Pauline Reece (Kathleen was her sister,) told us that fascism would never take root in the United States because we did not have a word similar to "Fatherland." She claimed that the Nazis were able to exploit the emotional implications in the word, "fatherland," to get the German, and Italian, and Spanish populace to abrogate all sorts of civil and personal liberties so they could help defend the "fatherland."
My sainted social studies teacher passed on some 15 years ago. Though I miss her, I have to admit that it is a fortunate she did not live to see the day when a Republican president would invent the fascist-enabeling term, "homeland."
I remember her teachings some 35 years later. "Department of Internal Security" just doesn't give him the emotional capital that "Department of Homeland Security" does.
God help us, but I hope Miss Reece was wrong about this one.
-
This does not compute
[Read the article: Bush: I lied. Wait, no I didn't!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Bush's press conference comments, vis a vis, the importance of lieing about Rumsfeld's imminent departure so as not to disrespect the troops by injecting politics into the command structure, is obviously illogical. The Secretary of Defense is an appointed position -- with the Secretary serving at the will and the pleasure of the President. Rumsfeld's departure (or not) is no more or less "political" this week then it would have been last week, AS FAR AS THE TROOPS ARE CONCERNED What makes this week different then last week is the election, which is a political event. Rumsfeld's departure is then, a nod to Republican party political realities, NOT to maintaining troop commnand structure or morale.
Of course, George Bush seems unable to achieve a firm grasp of reality. For him, the reality inside his head IS reality. So, if Bush thinks that admitting to a change in Sec. of Defense would have been political last week, but not this week, -- then the rest of us are supposed to see it that way too.
Sigh.
-
So long? But I never knew (or wanted to know) ye.
[Read the article: So long, Paris]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But we the public are NOT clamoring for more Paris Hilton coverage -- quite the contraray. Paris Hilton is manufactured news, force-fed to a reluctant public because we're told "we" want to know. No we don't!!! I am a West Virginian - as red a state as they come -- and no, I do not know one person (not one) who admits to having an "interest" in Paris Hilton. Her comings and goings and debaucheries are force fed into my reluctant eyes and helpless ears by a media which has convinced itself that this inexpensive and "juicy" material is what I secretly crave. Again, I COULD CARE LESS!!!
But the media machines have convinced themselves we do care, and so THEY continue to shine THEIR tractor beams onto her brainless, celebrity life.
Since it is this media attention which I think drives Paris' increasingly dysfunctional behavior we must look to the mainstream tabloid media as the ultimate font of this immoral, scurrilous behavior. THERE is where you will find America's biggest want of "family values" and "traditional morality:" NOT with America's media consumers, but with the media producers.
-
Why ANY Spears girl as "someone to look up to?"
[Read the article: Shaming Jamie Lynn Spears]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]No, Jamie Lynn Spears is NOT a good role model -- most of us do not want our 16 year olds to get pregnant, or even have sex at that age!
But the question is NOT whether Jamie Lynn has or has not proven to be a good role model. The question IS why on earth do so many parents want their children to look up to some media princess? -- fallen or otherwise?
-- why expect your child to model him(her)self after anyone in the first place?
Aren't we all supposed to be aiming for that "self actualized person?" Or have the principles of self actualization fallen so far off our national radar screen that few people have even heard the concept these days?
Raise your child (girl or boy) to develop their own character - their own sense of right and wrong. Then, if Brittany, or Jamie Lynn, or Josephine Blow gets pregnant, or uses steroids to improve their batting average, our children will not be affected by such revelations, except (hopefully) to sigh and say a prayer, or (as the Quakers say) hold the troubled media persona "in the light" for a moment.
It is such a parental cop-out to purchase copies of People, or Sports Illustrated, and say (or imply) to your kid -- "Be like this Successful Star."
Jamie Lynn Spears is responsible to herself, and answerable to her own conscience and (until she is of age) to her parents. Perhaps there would be fewer media and sports stars in personal life free-fall if we would stop expecting them to be roll models in the first place!
Atheletes play games for money. Actors act for money. Models show off clothes for money. Success in these, or any other field, does not necessarily imply virtue or character. Telling your child that it does is the ultimate parental cop-out.