Letters to the Editor
jebldmm
Published Letters: 933 Editor's Choice: 164
-
It's all semantics
[Read the article: Why are so many Americans still hoodwinked?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Bush says "I have no proof that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11". What people hear is "I know that Iraq was involved in 9/11, but I can't prove it". Saying "I have no proof" is NOT the same as saying "It didn't happen". If you doubt this, run the following phrases through your head. What do they make you think about?
"I have no proof that the republicans cheated during the 2004 election cycle".
"I have no proof that George Bush is a lying, misogynistic, coward"
"I have no proof that Karl Rove is really running our country".
-
I don't want children
[Read the article: The new face of sterilization]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not a kid - I'm 42. But I'm glad I took the time to come to this decision, and gave myself the option when I was younger. I still don't have a tubal. Instead I opted for an IUD, which provides me with 5 years of no-worry contraception. By the time I have to have it removed, I will probably be menopausal.
I've thought about getting a tubal ligation, but I don't see any real importance to it. There are so many other birth control options. I do think that women under 30 should NOT be getting this procedure. Life doesn't always end up being what you think it will be. People change, even if they think they never will. I never wanted children, but then I never wanted to get married, either, and I now find myself happily married. It's hard being childless in a world that defines a "family" as a "group with children". It's hard, sometimes, knowing that I won't ever experience the joy I see my childbearing friends experiencing. Deciding not to have children is not something that should be taken lightly, any more than deciding to have children.
-
This raises some questions for me
[Read the article: The GOP enacts its drama to perfection]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The republican congress would never grant these powers to a democratic president - especially the secret eavesdropping. This begs the question - Are these people so arrogant that they think they will retain control of congress forever, or do they actually have some inside knowledge that it will be so? History tells us that one party rule doesn't last forever. Is there something different about our political climate now? Do they think that they can undo these laws if they lose power? It's a lot easier to pass laws than to undo them. It is very hard for me to believe that these men are stupid enough to think that no president would ever abuse the kind of power they want to give him. They are essentially re-writing the constitution. What makes them think that this is really a safe thing to do?
-
We regulate businesses all the time
[Read the article: The skinny on anorexia chic]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We regulate all kinds of business behaviour in order to protect workers. The minimum wage, anti-smoking laws work safety regulations... there are literally hundreds of laws enacted soley to protect employees from abusive employers. Why should there not be a law designed to protect models from agencies/stylists/designers (aka employers) who insist that they maintain a weight that is not healthy? What is the big deal here? Are thin women not worth protecting?
-
Has he reformed his ideas or just his vocabulary?
[Read the article: Teammates: Allen used "N-word" in college]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I accept that people can change. A lot of people change deeply held views during and after college. However, given Allen's recent behaviour, I have a hard time believing that he has changed his views about minorities. I suspect that what he has learned is that openly racist people don't get elected to high office, so he had better be quiet about his true beliefs. Racially tolerant people don't behave the way he has behaved.
Does it matter? Yes. The republican party has been playing both sides of the fence when it comes to racial issues. They work very hard to convince minorities that they support them, but at the same time make it quite clear to their many racist white supporters that their support for minorities ends on election day. Anybody who cares about civil rights should be infuriated about the behaviour of the republican party that Allen exemplifies.
-
Why not fess up?
[Read the article: "It is absolutely false"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not much of a racist, but I will admit that I've used the "n" word once or twice in the past. I don't ever recall directing it at (or speaking it in front of) a black person, but it is part of a number of colorful expressions which I have used in the past. I suspect that most people have. Merely using the word doesn't mean you are definitively a racist - context is important. I would find Allen's denial more plausible if it weren't so absolute. If his words are true, then not only is he not a racist, but he is unusally racially sensitive for a white person. That is nonsensical, given what we know of him.
-
Re: Absolute?
[Read the article: "It is absolutely false"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Allen was not a "Southern boy". He was born in California and grew up in California and Chicago. He never lived in the South until he went to transferred from UCLA to the University of Virginia as a sophomore.