Letters to the Editor

Letters posted here are associated with the following Salon Premium Member:

jebldmm

Published Letters: 933     Editor's Choice: 164

  • By Noah's logic...

    [Read the article: Did Clinton really do it too?]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    ...we might as well just do away with the justice system itself. Is it really fair that ANYBODY should be sentenced for perjury if a sitting president was not? If the answer to that is "No", then we have to do away with the concept of perjury entirely and depend on people's innate honesty to get evidence in trials. Whether Clinton perjured himself and whether he should have been tried is a separate issue that has been debated ad nauseum. Libby was tried. He was found guilty.

    If Clinton should be tried, then try him and let the courts sort it out. Saying "he did it too, and he didn't get grounded" is an ineffective argument that a 4th grader makes for playing hooky, not an argument that should apply to the most powerful adults in the nation.

  • This is a sad story, no matter how I look at it

    [Read the article: Rep. Sheehan?]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    Sheehan wasn't the "mother" of the anti-war movement. The movement was very healthy before she joined it. She simply brought it much needed publicity. I admire her for her courage and resolution. However, I find it sad that she has turned away from the anti-war movement and taken up the anti-Bush movement. I don't think that impeaching Bush will bring the troops home. In fact, it would simply distract Americans from teh tragedy that is happening in Iraq, allowing it to go on longer. We need people to focus attention on Iraq more than ever. The only way we're going to get the troops home is by convincing enough Republicans to override a presidential veto. That's going to take a lot of public pressure.

  • It's a great gesture for him to make...

    [Read the article: The Empathy Belly]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    ...but I doubt it's really the same. First, a pregnant woman's body adjusts gradually to the extra weight. It's like gaining weight. A person who is 100 lbs overweight grows larger muscles to accomodate that weight or they wouldn't be able to move. Being 100 lbs overweight is not the same as picking up and carrying a hundred lbs. I suspect that is why they limit the time a person can use the unit. How many of us could pick up and carry 35 lbs all day without conditioning?

    Second, there are effects of pregnancy that could not be safely duplicated, if they could be duplicated at all. I suppose that a person could eat lots of salt to fake bloating, but how could a man experience the muskoloskeletal changes a woman undergoes while she is pregnant?

    But it was a nice thing for him to do.

  • This is why you don't mix God and Government

    [Read the article: American Taliban on the warpath against evolution]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    Putting "In God We Trust" on our money and "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance were very bad ideas. I can understand the religious right's confusion - how can we have a secular government some of the time and yet endorse their religion on our currency and in our national pledge? By introducing "God" into our government in seemingly subtle ways, we've blurred the line between religion and politics, which is exactly what the founding fathers didn't want us to do. We need to demarcate the lines more effectively. Unfortunately, once you've given a group a privilege, it's very hard to take it back. With the fundamentalists pushing from one side, and the rest of us bending over backwards to not offend them on the other, I don't see any changes soon. Well, not any good ones, anyway. But we'd better start pushing back soon... unless we like the idea of living in a theocracy. Personally, a fundamentalist Christian nation doesn't sound any better to me than a fundamentalist Muslin one does.