Letters to the Editor
surprised
Published Letters: 143 Editor's Choice: 20
-
Mountain out of a molehill
[Read the article: Million-dollar babies]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Seems like Broadsheet and some others are making a mountain out of a molehill here.
Lots of people, if they had their druthers, would have large families instead of small families. It they feel they can manage more children, financially and otherwise, is that so terrible? One thing that makes it easier to manage large families is being around other large families, so it makes sense that like-minded parents would reinforce each other. Big deal.
Like others who have posted here, I come from a large family, and there's lots to be said for such an upbringing. I was one of seven kids, including one with a severe handicap and one who was adopted. All in all, it was a very positive experience, and I'm convinced that growing up with so many brothers and sisters made me a better person than I would have been otherwise. Economics preclude me from giving my own children the exact same family environment, but at least they have a lot of cousins -- another benefit of large families.
And please don't make so much out of the Pilates classes, or whatever it is that mothers do for "me" time. Such activities are good for physical and mental health. My own dear sainted mother had, and still has, her "me" time for swimming laps and doing crossword puzzles; kids and grandkids are not to bother her then. I often joke that, as long as I get in a good, daily run and a peaceful shower afterward, I'm ready for whatever motherhood or anything else can throw at me. (I can just imagine the string of Salon letters that would chew me out for being -- gasp -- a breeder in running shoes! God forbid I should have an outside interest, or not have an outside interest, or spend my time doing something that doesn't earn extra money and boost me up the career ladder. . .)
I am kind of disappointed that such a bogus lifestyle "trend" story came out of NPR. Now the New York Times, I would have expected that.
-
Why so much fuss about dogs? Here's my 2 cents.
[Read the article: Wife abuse vs. dog abuse]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I donate to and volunteer for our local DV shelter and have very strong views about the far-reaching effects of DV on all of society and am very, very sympathetic to the victims of domestic violence and/or abuse. Also, I am not a dog owner or particularly a dog person.
Still, I do see why people are so upset -- as am I -- about these allegations of horrific animal abuse, which seem pretty credible.
The more helpless and defenseless the victim, the more disgusting the abuse, I think. Dogs and other animals can't speak, can't call the cops or anybody else for help, can't hire lawyers to represent them, can't get themselves to shelters, etc., so they're pretty helpless and defenseless. Deliberate cruelty to such a living thing is absolutely disgusting, in the eyes of most people. (Yes, I realize that in some abusive human relationships, the victims have a very difficult or near-impossible time getting help or protection or even physically escaping, but I'm talking about very general adult human versus non-human differences here.)
That's not to say that dogs and other animals have equal rights or equal value to humans. But even in Bible, animal abuse is condemned. Even waaaaay back in those days, society said that if you kill an animal for food (or for some idiotic sacrifice to God), you must do so as humanely and respectfully as possible. So the respect for the dignity and feelings of animals goes back a long way.
As others have noted, cruelty is cruelty. And often those who abuse and torture animals will also, if given the opportunity, abuse and torture people.
-
perspective
[Read the article: In defense of Larry Craig]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I also appreciate the overall thesis of the article.
Craig is surely a hypocrite and, for air travelers seeking a reasonably decent place to pee, somewhat of a public nuisance. But it's not like he committed an act that compromised the public trust. The Republicans should be much more outraged about the Duke Cunninghams in their ranks (and there are plenty) than about Larry "Wide Stance" Craig and his tacky behavior, which was probably no tackier than that of David Vitter. It does seem like being (gasp!) g-a-y and (ahem) desperate is worse, in some eyes, than engaging in bribery and extortion.
-
At least one long-winded loony at every public meeting
[Read the article: Was the Tasered student asking for it?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've been to a lot of public meetings and public hearings in my life, way too many. If we tasered every loony who hogged the mic at these meetings to make long-winded, incoherent and possibly semi-obscene speeches, the zapping would be non-stop across this nation.
-
meaning of "clean"
[Read the article: Men on eHarmony seem obsessed with women who are "clean"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Clean" means different things, depending on the context.
To me, it means "clean and sober," or someone who doesn't drink or do drugs.
To some, it means free from STDs.
To some, it means neat and tidy, as in keeping house well. Some neatniks have trouble meshing with clutterbugs, not that I'm criticizing clutterbugs.
To some, it means having a sort of G-rated, or at least PG-rated, lifestyle or sense of humor -- you know, "clean jokes" versus "dirty jokes," "clean," church-going-type living versus enjoying the nightlife (not that there's anything wrong with that!)
To some, it means good grooming, I guess even in this day and age. As in "clean-cut."
I understand that "clean" is part of a checkoff list used by eHarmony. Perhaps eHarmony and others should refine that list so that it's more specific. For example, it may be very important to a recovering alcoholic or someone who has dealt with alcoholics in the family that a potential mate be "clean" in the sense of being a non-drinker, but not in the housekeeping sense or the joke-telling sense.
All in all, the LW shouldn't take offense at the "clean" requirement. I don't think any offense is intended. The problem, rather, is vagueness.