Letters to the Editor
surprised
Published Letters: 146 Editor's Choice: 20
-
re:wouldn't baby sign language retard a kid's talking?
[Read the article: The parent trap]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A reasonable question. Speech therapists say no, and in fact use of sign language inspires speech. It may seem counter-intuitive, but the empirical evidence is that use of sign language by infants and toddlers helps and encourages the development of verbal skills.
On the question of strollers -- yes, it is lately fashionable to bash the fancy, expensive strollers. Cheap strollers will do if you keep them on dry pavement and smooth mall floors. But where I live, in a land of snow, ice, mud and dirt and gravel (NOT dry pavement and polished mall floors), all-terrain strollers are a must. The old-fashioned type of stroller will, in fact, break apart in this environment.
-
Nostalgia, polarization and drama
[Read the article: Hillary's bridge back to the 20th century]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Good story. Interestingly, it's usually conservatives, not liberals, who make public-policy choices based on nostalgia about the good ole days. Either way, it's not too smart. You can't repeat the past, no matter how rosy it was. Sometimes, you can't even correctly remember the past. The '90s weren't all that, if you want to be accurate (Rwanda; Timothy McVeigh and the many, many people like him throughout the west at that time; Helen Chenoweth; Don Young as House Resouces Committee Chairman, etc.).
A couple of other points:
-- Polarization. It may be highly unfair, it may be irrational, but large numbers of Americans just hatehatehate Hillary Clinton. Personally, I don't get it. Personally, I like her in a lot of ways. But there's no denying it -- lots of people just despise her. Hence her low approval ratings and high negatives. Obama, on the other hand, does not inspire such vitriol, especially in the red states. Even conservatives who won't be voting for him kind of like him, or are at least OK with him, pastor controvesy notwithstanding. You see it in the positive-negative ratings, and you'll see it if you hang out with a lot of conservatives, as I do. So why on earth would Dems want to choose a nominee who is right off the bat so polarizing and so despised by large numbers of citizens? Even if she were to become president, that's not such a good way to start, with much of the citizenry seething in resentment.
-- "No more drama, vote Obama." You've probably heard the slogan. Personally, I've pretty much had enough of politicians who place SO much importance on personal loyalty (not just the Clintons but, to our nation's great detriment, Dubya) and politicians who fly off the handle and throw temper tantrums when they think that loyalty is breached or that they've been slighted in some way (B. Clinton, but also a huge issue for McCain). It's not just an issue at the presidential level; I can list several state politicians who fit this description, and I'm tired of it. I'm looking for even-tempered candidates, not rage-aholics. No more soap operas in the White House, or the state legislature, for that matter.
-- Hillary is not the only woman who could be elected president, contrary to some of her supporters' beliefs. From Maine to Alaska and Hawaii, women are serving as governors and U.S. senators and enjoying sky-high approval ratings in those jobs. One of those governors is currently pregnant, even. I just don't buy the theory that Hillary is the one and only great female hope.
My mother would, on the surface, be a typical Hillary supporter. But all the stuff I've just written encapsulates why she is strongly for Obama. I personally have additional reasons to favor Obama. I know he's not perfect. I would have preferred a candidate with experience serving as a governor, for example. I don't expect him to be a miracle worker. Still, he's my choice.
-
A couple of quibbles
[Read the article: Buckle up those fetuses!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"There's something of the absurd in this that reminds me of that bumper sticker that informs other drivers you have a baby in your car. They are meant to think: Oh, NOW I won't smash into that car in front of me, since I've become aware of the baby involved!"
A quibble: That is NOT the purpose of the "Baby on Board" signs, which by the way are not bumper stickers and which should be posted well above car bumpers. Take it from someone with several family members in the law enforcement/emergency response/medical fields -- people who have actually relied on those signs.
The purpose of those signs is to notify emergency responders, in the event of an accident, that there is a baby or child in the vehicle as well as the more readily seen driver or other adults. The driver may not be in a position to tell the EMTs or firefighters or good Samaritans who are first on the scene. There have been some tragic cases, even locally in my region, where adults were pulled from burning or otherwise wrecked vehicles but first responders did not know to retrieve the children, who were unseen in the mangled mess and who perished. (I actually know one of the families that went through this.) There are also some cases that I know of personally where those signs saved lives. It's not a perfect precaution because the sign can be obscured in a wreck, too, but having a sign is better than not having a sign.
Also a quibble with Carol: Not all information about safety of fetuses is intended as part of a campaign to deny women reproductive rights, or to elevate the rights of fetuses over the women carrying them. Seems to me that the fact that 200 fetuses are saved annually by seat belts is indeed useful information in and of itself, and not at all insignificant.