Letters to the Editor
jebldmm
Published Letters: 933 Editor's Choice: 164
-
That's the goal
[Read the article: Sister, can you spare $2 million?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Who was it who said that their goal was to ensure that abortion was legal, but no woman in the U.S. could get one? Randall? Anyway, that's the goal of the anti-choice movement. They've realized that the courts aren't going to completely overturn federal abortion rights, and that it doesn't matter. They can go to states and convince enough legilators to pass increasingly restrictive access laws. They can even pass seemingly innocuous laws in blue states that restrict abortion (like parental notifications laws, so called "partial birth abortion" laws, clinic re-modelling provisions, etc.).
They've also been winning the PR war. The entire "partial-birth abortion" frenzy was a meaningless exercise in preventing abortions (it was pretty rare to begin with, and there are other options), but it convinced a lot of people that 3rd trimester abortions are common and uncontrolled. There are actually a lot of people in the U.S. who believe that a woman could walk into a clinic on the day before she is scheduled to deliver and demand an abortion - and get one. At every step, they have framed this issue in ways that make people believe that abortion is murder, that it is a common method of birth control, that fully-formed foetuses are being ripped in agony from women's wombs, that woman are being traumatized by abortion, and that there are multiple health risks associated with abortion. There are hundreds of anti-choice sites making spurious claims, but their claims are ridiculous, but people believe them because they have heard them so many times, and we have never countered their arguments. Compare that to evolution - there are multiple sites breaking down anti-evolution arguments and countering them. If you type "abortion" into google, one of the top sites (just after wikipedia) is called "abortionfacts.com". It seems very neutral, until you start reading about "facts" like how abortion can cause PTSD, and how "Pregnancy from rape is extremely rare. As reasons for legalizing abortion rape and incest are nothing more than emotional screens used by those profiting from abortion.". It's a very nice looking site. No pictures of aborted foetuses, no moral claims, just lots of lies.
I've tried to research actual abortion statistics and technical information, and it's not easy to find reliable, current information. Even trying to find out how many women get abortions each year is a challenge. Occasionally you read an article in the news about studies on post-abortion issues, but details are rarely included. Their claims go unanswered, except by people saying "but we have the right to an abortion", which is then interpreted as "we have a right to murder innocent babies" by the anti-choicers. We may be right, but we're losing the battle because we're focusing on esoteric rights while they are distorting facts, outright lying, and manipulating people's emotions.
-
It's a little bit perplexing how editors choose Editor's Choices...
[Read the article: Goodbye, Harry Potter]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I was under the impression that most Editor's Choices were selected because their content jarred the Editor's interest by offering thought-provoking observations about the subject matter of the original article. So why, in the 6 (as of this writing) letters chosen for this honor in the article about Harry Potter, do we have two letters lambasting Salon for the article's suitability as Salon material (presumably we should wipe out the comics as well), two complaining about plot secrets being revealed (even though there were ample spoiler warnings), and only two that addressed the basic content of the original article: The end of the Potter franchise, what it meant and will mean to children of all ages, yada, yada, and yada?
I am perplexed. How can you give a red star to two-thirds of the letters chosen, if they have no meaningful content addressing the original subject matter? It's dumbfounding. Are there different standards set by different editors? Are we to regard non-sequitors to be as valuable as topic-focussed observations? Are ad-hominem attacks as literarily relevant as honest intellectual evaluations? Please say that the two-thirds chosen, that had no bearing on the original article, were an aberration and that you won't do it again.
And lest anyone accuse me of not addressing the core article: I'm a 53 year old IT specialist who was introduced to Potter by my wife six years ago. It's been a long slog to get to this point, but I've enjoyed the Potter series as much as I've enjoyed Clancy or Tolkien or Clark or Asimov or Pratchett or Forester or a hundred others. We can read all we want to into what the author had intended, but at the end of the day, we take away what we want to find, and leave the rest. I will miss Harry as he goes back to an ordinary life, knowing that the fundamental truths of life regarding loyalty and honesty and a true moral courage will be adequately addressed in the series for generations of people to discover in the future. The fact that Rowling has given Harry the chance to live an ordinary life, is perhaps the brightest of all the possibilities that she has exposed in her writings. Isn't that what normal people want? A chance to live happily and well after working through our personal obstacles to achieve the rewards we believe we are due? In that regard, the Potter books are as heroic in scope as anything adventurous we might have read otherwise.
ejb
-
Since when is lazy a problem?
[Read the article: Who is Fred Thompson?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Right wingers seem to like politicians who don't work too hard. Bush is not exactly known for long hours of dedicated labor, and the late Republican Congress spent very little time at the office.