Letters to the Editor
jebldmm
Published Letters: 933 Editor's Choice: 164
-
What is next, racial segregation?
[Read the article: More on gender testing in sports]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Some racial groups are physiologically more suited for different sports (longer legs, more stamina, etc.). Should we group people by race and only let people who are completely equal compete against each other? This is getting ridiculous. We're well into the 21st century, yet we are having trouble letting go of 16th century standards. I can see some logic in broadly grouping men and women in some sports, but can anybody explain to me why women aren't routinely competing with men in bowling and golf? Or why we are worrying about some women being too masculine to compete with other women? Human beings come in different shapes and sizes and abilities. Some of the genetic characteristics we are born with give us advantages in certain sports. That is a reality that most of us have accepted, and it's sad that the participants in this particular sport can't seem to grasp it. Santhi Soundrarajan is a woman in enough ways that they need a panel of experts to analyze her gender. She is not a man trying to pass as a woman. I wish they would just let her be.
-
How about pointless?
[Read the article: Saddam: The death of a dictator]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Okay, Hussein is dead, so? Does this mean that we won't be reading headlines about the Iraq civil war tomorrow? Does this mean that Iraq families are more politically free? Are Iraqi women free to walk the streets safely? Hussein was a monster, but no worse than many leaders with whom the U.S. currently has amicable ties. And to give him credit, he managed to meld three groups who hate each other into a functioning government that held together through all the sanctions. I suspect that any Iraqi celebrations about his death is muted by fear about the future without someone like him as a leader. The world is a slightly nicer place with him dead, but is Iraq better off now than when he was leader? And more importantly, can it be made better off, or is is going to descend into a shattered nation like Afghanistan?
-
princeprigio
[Read the article: New Year's resolution: Be more like Wal-Mart]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I used to think the same way you do, then I thought a bit harder. Earned Income Tax Credits and taxpayer subsidized medical care for low income people are federal subsidies for businesses that choose to pocket profits rather than pay their workers decent wages. The real harm is to the competitors of Wal-Mart, and ultimately to society. If a competitor doesn't drop their wages and lower the cost of their goods, then they lose business. If the competitor DOES drop their wages, then their employees become as much a burden on society as Wal-Mart's employees. Every time Wal-Mart convinces a business to sell them a product for a lower price, that business has to cut it's employees wages a bit more. Every time they switch to a Chinese supplier to cut prices, American jobs are lost. Thus, the Wal-Mart business model doesn't just effect it's own employees - it effects the employees of all of it's suppliers and competitors. It also effects employees in other nations, who are forced to work longer hours for lower wages in order to contribute to the financial success of one of the wealthiest businesses in the world.
Pure capitalism is simpley survival of the fittest applied to human beings. The strong prosper and the weak perish. The real question we have to ask ourselves is: "Are we willing to let the weakest members of society suffer in order to enable the wealthiest to be even richer?". It's a simple choice. We don't have to provide income subsidies to anybody. We can let people live in poverty. But if we choose to subsidize the wages for employees of profitable companies, then more companies will be induced to cut their own employees wages in order to become more profitable.
-
Gender is NOT important
[Read the article: Edwards for president?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't understand how anybody who considers him/herself a feminist could say that gender was "important" in selecting a president. Feminism isn't about women being first, it's about our being equal. In a fair society, the best person wins, regardless of their gender.
-
My husband love "Real Simple"
[Read the article: Women's issues]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]He was reading it the other day, and complained that it was too woman oriented. When we started to think about it, most of the best "self-improvement" magazines are oriented towards women. Men's magazines tend to be more focused on sex, politics, and sports. My husband is not the least bit effeminate, he is simply a modern man who is as comfortable doing laundry as he is catching up on the latest game with the guys.
I realize that P&G and the editors of "Read Simple" probably do a lot of studies on who their major demographic/customers are, and focus on that list - but it might be nice if they included a space for men who aren't threatened by organizing closets and buying laundry detergent.
-
You're getting the question backwards
[Read the article: Just rewards]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The real question should be: Can getting a reward after an act of heroism diminish the act? And the answer is pretty clear: No. When Autrey jumped off that platform, he didn't have time to think about whatever rewards he might get. He didn't have time to worry about what might happen to him. He didn't want his daughters to grow up having seen a man crushed beneath a subway, so he intervened to save the man's life. We may prefer the poignancy of a hero who then disappears into the crowd, a la "The Lone Ranger", but hero's don't have to fit into mythical molds to be hero's. Good deeds are their own reward, but it's nice to see somebody getting something a bit more substantial than the moral satisfaction of doing the right thing.