Letters to the Editor
jebldmm
Published Letters: 933 Editor's Choice: 164
-
Who said anything about luggage getting off?
[Read the article: Ask the pilot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am opposed to people having to sit for long periods in a plane, but it doesn't bother me the slightest if someone who chooses to get off finds that their luggage is going on without them. They can pick it up at the airport when they get to their destination, or have it shipped back if they simply aren't going. It may cost a bit more to carry the luggage, but not as much as it would cost to remove it, I suspect.
And... you're not a "know it all". Your a columnist, and I guess that some people feel that someone with enough confidence to inform others must think they know it all. Personally, I'm glad you feel you know enough to share, because I've learned a lot from your columns. I may disagree with you sometimes, but it is possible to respect someone and disagree with them. It's a shame that some people can't disagree without becoming abusive. For example... I think that 2 hours is too short. I think 3-4 is more reasonable. See.. wasn't that simple? I disagreed and didn't even have to call you something nasty in the process.
-
Too bad Australia is taken
[Read the article: Sex offender surveillance]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That's what people really want, isn't it? For sex offenders to be packed of "somewhere else", where they can never again threaten decent citizens. The problem is that the world simply isn't that simple. Sex offenders have families, and they have rights. And although recidivism is high among some groups of offenders, it is not 100%, and all offenses are not the same. That means that some of the people we are punishing really are reformed and no threat to society - and some never were.
Many of the people we consider "sex offenders" are guilty of nothing more than getting caught doing something socially unacceptable but not particularly harmful. If somebody masturbates in a movie theater, in the dark, where nobody can see him, and gets caught by an usher, should he be banned from society for life? I'll grant, it's vulgar, but hardly in the same category as forcible rape. What about an 18 year old man who has sex with his nearly 16 year old fiance? Should his life be destroyed in the name of protecting society?
We really need to get a grip when it comes to "sexual offenders". They have to live somewhere. They have to work, and eat, and do all the things that normal people do. I don't particularly care if one lives next door to me, as long a he/she doesn't mess with me or my family. People need to be careful with their kids around strangers, anyway. What's worse, knowing that a child molester lives down the street - or having someone down the street who molests children regularly and has never been caught?
-
They are claiming it was not serious
[Read the article: Lewis "Scooter" Libby is a felon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The meme on the right seems to be that Plame was an enemy of the state (liberal) who used her connections to put her husband in a position to attack the president during our nations time of crisis (the War On Terror). Since Plame was undermining Democracy itself, the Bush Administration was totally correct in attacking her. Of course, in order for this to work one must deny the covert status of Plame, which the right wingers seem anxious to do. They claim that she was a former covert agent. Their proof is the fact that Fitzgerald didn't indict Libby for revealing her covert status, but "only" for lying about what he said. Fitzgerald himself is a self-aggrandizing liberal who seeks to impress Democrats and earn himself a high position in a future Democratic administration. The reporters who testified are, of course, liars. Libby is at the same time an innocent victim of Democratic attack politics and a nobel official who lied (with the approval of the president and vice-president, who can do no wrong) to save the country from a woman who was plotting against it.
This is another one of those "How can anybody actually belive that?" cases. The ability of right wing authoritarians to believe ridiculous things constantly amazes me. They are working overtime to rationalize the lies, because they have to. If they allow themselves to believe in Libby's guilt, then they have to believe that a highly respected Bush administration official lied to cover up the fact that he outed a covert Federal agent during a "time of war". They simply can't believe that, and will stretch the truth in any way necessary to not have to.
-
If it gives women options, I think it's good
[Read the article: A plastic surgeon for your private bits]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Okay... I don't particularly like the idea of a woman having her hymen re-created because she has to be inspected before marriage, but I do like the idea that she has the option. Hymens break for a lot of reasons, not just voluntary sex. And it is quite possible to have sex without breaking one. A hymen should not be a symbol of anything. I'm sorry that the woman wants to go back to a society where she will be treated in ways I don't like, but if I'm going to support women's rights to make choices in their lives, I have to support the choices I don't like as well as the ones I like. And I have to like any technology that makes it easier for women to make those choices.