Letters to the Editor
jebldmm
Published Letters: 933 Editor's Choice: 164
-
Translation
[Read the article: Quote of the Day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"It's okay to send creepy messages to minors, as long as you don't actually follow up and have sex with them." If you're a Republican, at least. I wonder if Dobson would be so tolerant if Foley were a Democrat? Actually, that's not true - I don't wonder at all.
When are they going to figure out that 1) What Foley did was wrong. As a person in authority, he had no right to send out instant messages or e-mails that made these young men feel "sick". And 2) What the leaders did was wrong. They had the responsibility to stop him. No, this isn't the worst think that has ever been done by a congressperson. Not by a longshot. But it is wrong, nonetheless, and they chose to ignore it and protect Foley. The "party of accountability" is sounding an awful lot like a kid who got caught doing something wrong and doesn't want to 'fess up.
-
Protecting us from ourselves
[Read the article: What do women need? South Dakota voters debate]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I can't think of a more negative message to send girls than claiming that women need to be protected from themselves. What's next? A lot of women get into trouble when they drink too much. Heck - I suspect that a lot of unwanted pregnancies begin while women are under the influence of alcohol. Should we protect women from the dangers associated with drinking by making it illegal for them to drink? What about women who fall into poverty because they get a divorce? Perhaps it would be a good idea to restrict their options so that they don't end up poor and alone. Rape would be far less common if women were not allowed to wander about without a close male relative nearby to protect them. For that matter - isn't it a bit dangerous for women to be dressing provocatively in public? Perhaps some nice, loose, robes would keep them safer. We don't want women's choices in clothing to endanger them.
Protecting women from making bad decisions is the worst possible reason for passing legislation. It's not just the beginning of a slippery slope - it's a quick trip halfway down.
-
I'd love to believe that we'll win, but...
[Read the article: With the GOP in free fall, the White House hopes for safety in terrorism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... I've seen this scenario before too many times. Republicans are horrible at governing, but VERY good at winning elections. They have taken partisanship to new levels, and I suspect that a lot of them believe their own rhetoric about America being in danger if Democrats win back control. On election day, they will pull out a bag of tricks to keep Democrat's from being able to vote, and to keep their vote from being counted if they do make it to an election booth. We'll see the same dirty tricks we've seen before, and some elections in which the majority of people intend to vote Democtratic will swing the other way. This isn't a "conspiracy theory". We know that Republicans do this - they have been convicted in court and condemned in public reports for doing so.
-
Since when did they need an excuse to bash gays?
[Read the article: Scapegoating gay Republicans]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is the party that created the "get out the vote" strategy of putting anti-gay marriage initiatives on the ballot and then screaming about how gay marriage would destroy America if it were allowed. In states that already have bans on gay marriage, they push totally unnecessary constitutional amendments just to rally their base. Republicans don't need an excuse to bash gays - gay-bashing is an essential part of their strategy for success.
I'm ambivalent about the idea of "outing", but let's not pretend that GLBT people working for the republican party are doing gay people everywhere any favors. They are supporting a group that has been feeding their base's hatred of homosexuality in order to win elections. They have created a climate where gay-bashing is not only tolerated, but expected.
-
They kept emphasizing the safety
[Read the article: Ask the pilot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Lidle seemed to think that flying was the safest thing in the world. I just read an article where the flight instructor who was killed along with him commented that flying was perfectly safe and you were in more danger driving to the airport. I think this leans the argument toward "4", with the added influence of arrogance. I wouldn't want to fly in a plane where the pilot believed that flying was perfectly safe. I'd rather fly in a plane with a slightly paranoid pilot who knew that if he made a big enough mistake, or maybe even a small mistake with compounding factors, then people would die. I guess it's human nature to want to feel safe and in control - but the idea that flying is perfectly safe has caused many small pilots to do really stupid things, resulting in loss of life. Perhaps it would be a good idea to lay this meme to rest?