Letters to the Editor
jebldmm
Published Letters: 933 Editor's Choice: 164
-
Since when did Salon start publishing racists?
[Read the article: Colorblind]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Salon seems to think that it's okay to print an article insulting people of a different race. Well, it's not. It's not okay to say that the only reason white people permit themselves to like Obama is because his mother is white. It's not okay to say that white people like Obama in order to prove they aren't racists. It's not okay to tar all white people as racists. I don't even know what to say about the suggestion that Obama isn't "black" enough for the author's taste. This sounds way too much like the historical accusations that some white people weren't "white" enough to pass in civilized society for my comfort.
The reality is that Obama earned his spotlight by being a very charismatic speaker, not by having dark skin. It may be impossible for Ms. Dickerson to move beyond her racial stereotypes to see the truth, but it's not 1960 anymore. Racism may still be around, but it's no longer the norm among Caucasians. Perhaps she should move out of her comfort zone a bit - and while she is learning, I hope that Salon will reconsider the wisdom of publishing articles that are racist at their very core.
-
Katy M... I'm not defensive
[Read the article: Colorblind]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm angry. I happen to be one of those white people who likes Obama. I'm not sure if he's ready yet, but he is charismatic, politically savvy, and smart, and I would like to see him as VP and, eventually, president. I don't really give a damn where his parents came from, or what shade his skin is. Nobody is pretending that racism doesn't exist. But there is a vast difference between acknowdeging race and making broad accusations toward all members of a particular race.
-
Is picking up garbage economically good?
[Read the article: The final word on recycling]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When I think about it, there is no economic justification for forcing people to pay a premium to have their garbage picked up and taken to a landfill. My husband and I have very little garbage. We recycle and compost, and only put out a can every 3 weeks or so. But we pay for weekly pickup. It would be cheaper for us to simply take our garbage to the dump ourselves (we have a small pickup truck). So why shouldn't our garbage simply sit in our yard until we decide to cart it off to the dump? We might have more rodents and flies, but that's not an economic argument (unless you factor in the costs of disease).
My point is that it's never a good idea to try to reduce social policy to pure economics. Modern economics does not take secondary effects into account. There is no way of quantifying the cost of having increased populations of rodents and flies, or the stink of a rotting pile of garbage, or the increased risk from skunks attracted to the smell. Recycling may not be cost effective from a strictly dollar and cents economics perspective, but it can't be a bad thing to use less of limited resources like aluminum, petroleum, and landfill space. I may not be able to put a dollar value on conservation, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have a value.
-
Matthews hangs out with too many Right Wingers
[Read the article: Do you have to have balls to have balls?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Only right wingers think that democrates are the party of "gay marriage and abortion". In reality, there is a lot more to the Democratic party, including a desire for a balanced budget, an end to the war in Iraq, and a return of traditional civil liberties. I don't know if Matthews himself is biased, or if he is simply reflecting the views of conservative friends, buy only a person who is unfamiliar with the reality of the Democratic party would make a comment like his.
-
This is very paternalistic
[Read the article: Egg-selling ethics]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There MIGHT be risks somewhere down the line, so it is a bad idea for women to be allowed to sell eggs? This is what I don't like about some segments of the feminist movement. They seem to feel that women are unable to make a decision without being exploited, and they want to protect women from making the wrong decision so badly that they protect women from making up their own minds about how to live their lives.
There is no evidence of any real risk associated with donating eggs. Even the Nature article was only able to come up with one apocryphal story, with absolutely no mention of research supporting a connection between colon cancer and fertility drugs. Evey study they cited was inconclusive or found no serious problems. Will some correlation appear in 20 years? Maybe. And maybe some of the women selling their eggs will be able to use the money to pay for a college education and maybe one of them will discover a cure for AIDS. Maybe is a big word. In the absence of solid evidence, let's treat women like grown-ups and let them make their own decisions.