Letters to the Editor
apearlma
Published Letters: 4
-
Maybe the husband isn't the target...
[Read the article: I've had three miscarriages and my husband won't wear a yarmulke]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think a lot of the respondants are missing a subtle nuance of Jewish culture here - the synagogue that the woman is going to is at best Conservative. By him not wearing the yarmulke, he's not just announcing he's not Jewish, he's announcing that she's married to someone non-Jewish. The synagogue doesn't know that they've agreed to raise their children Jewish. Maybe they haven't.
In many synagogues, some people will assume that gives them a license to make sure that she's 'doing the right thing' and the behavior such people will display is often abhorent. They're not being intrusive because of themselves, but because they're trying to save Judaism. They're not trying to make her husband uncomfortable - they're trying to make her uncomfortable about her decisions in life.
The LW should find a synagogue, probably of a liberal reform or reconstructionist bent, that accepts such decisions rather than trying to force the synagogues of her birth or her husband to come to terms. Probably contacting the Union for Reform Judaism is a good place to start.
-
Shaq
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think it makes a lot of sense for the Suns, provided they do what I think they're going to do with Shaq and he doesn't get injured. They don't need Shaq to play a full game - they need him to play 20-25 minutes of wearing down the opposing team's center. And when he's not there, they run their usual game.
Do you think Tim Duncan is going to like having to run down the court to stop the fast scoring Suns from scoring their usual baskets, then spend the last 10-15 seconds of the shot clock banging with Shaq? Sure, it might take Shaq 10-15 seconds to get up the court, but the Suns don't need the full 24 seconds to get a play in motion...
-
Say what
[Read the article: I stood on principle and was harshly reprimanded]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There's something going on between the lines in this letter. Namely, the LW went straight to reporting it to HR. Possibly without asking anyone else in the company if that was a good move to do.
As an example, the LW could have asked HR a series of hypothetical questions. Could have asked the operations manager that. Or the immediate supervisor. A desk buddy. Whomever. Somehow, no one stopped the LW from doing this, when from the sounds of it, people would have slapped the LW upside the head.
And the calling of the superior a principal suggests that the principal spent a lot of hours and work getting to their position. Insanely large number of hours. It isn't going to be caste - the rest of the company is going to be aware of just how many hours this person spent and how much the firm's survival depends on them being there.
If you, the LW, want the job, apologize. If you don't, don't. But you have no future at this company if you don't apologize.
-
Arlen Specter Redux
[Read the article: Come back, Joe. All is forgiven]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think the model really is Arlen Specter. Sure, Lieberman can talk smack about whatever he wants on the campaign trail. He steps out of line in the Senate, he'll get bounced to some subcommittee he doesn't know exists - and because he made the deal with the party in charge, the other party won't trust him if he comes over.
And out of line probably includes filibusters - just look how neutered Arlen Specter has been...