Letters to the Editor
jebldmm
Published Letters: 933 Editor's Choice: 164
-
This is a tough one
[Read the article: Battered and fired]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree that it's wrong to punish victims, but I'd like to see an amendment on the law that said that it only applied if the victim was willing to leave their spouse. Additionally, I'd like to see the law provide funds to subsidize housing for her to live in until she was on her feet, if necessary. Otherwise, it's the same as having a law saying that people who are suicidal should have their jobs protected, whether they accept help in overcoming their problems or not. Or that drug addicts should be protected from losing their jobs even if they aren't willing to try to give up the drugs. There are complex reasons why women become the victims of abuse, just like their are complex reasons why people become addicted to drugs or become suicidal. Society does not benefit when we protect victims without encouraging them and providing help to them so that they won't be victims anymore.
Oh... and obviously, the perpetrator of violence has to be taken off the street so that he doesn't endanger the victim anymore. We wouldn't allow a stalker to endanger a woman's life and livlihood... I don't see why it should be any different if the stalker is married to her.
-
The pie is getting smaller
[Read the article: The Bush economy: Strong and stronger]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That's how I think of it, anyway. During the Clinton years, the pie got bigger. We all prospered. During the Bush years, the pie has been shrinking, but nobody noticed because the biggest players at the table were still getting big slices, and that's what the media reported on. Now, the pie has finally gotten small enough that even the biggest players have to take a smaller slice. I don't even want to think about what the little guys get.
You know, I probably shouldn't write comments about economic issues during lunch.
-
They're human?
[Read the article: Placating the GOP base or protecting the workplace?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You wouldn't think so based on the media and the right wingers. They talk about "illegal immigrants" as if they were vermin who needed to be either kept out of the U.S. or eradiated. I have to keep reminding myself that we're talking about human beings who want to work so that they and their families can have better lives, not freeloaders who are out to take advantage of the generosity of U.S. citizens.
-
What's next?
[Read the article: Microsoft on Mac gains: Apple's not even close]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Starbuck's announced today that they sold more coffee during March than Aunt Mabel's coffee shop did in 20 years - and the coffee they served was as good as her's!"... "United Airlines announced today that they flew more people in the last week than Tibetan Airlines did in it's entire history - and their customer satisfaction ratings were higher!".
In case Microsoft hasn't noticed, Apple knows that they aren't as big as Microsoft. Apple has always provided a standard of quality for Microsoft to live up to and new technology for Microsoft to copy so that the computer industry can move forward. So what?
-
It's not paternalistic
[Read the article: Too young to tie your tubes?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If anything, it's "ageist", but it's not a bad thing. I'm betting that they would feel the same way about vasectomy's for men under 30. Any responsible physician would be reluctant to make permanent changes to a person's body when they were that young. These doctor's are not making reproductive choices for the women. The women have other options for preventing reproduction until such a time as they can ensure the doctor's that they are making a mature decision. The IUD is a safe, reversible, long-term birth control option.
-
Why does the pharmacist issue bother me?
[Read the article: Roundup: Fake wombs and (even faker) female superheroes]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...when having doctors tell women they won't tie their tubes doesn't? I think it's because 1) Doctors are supposed to give out medical advice, and even refuse a medical procedure if they feel it is not medically sound and 2) Women have other options besides tubal ligation for birth control
-
Thanks for the reminder
[Read the article: Hug your systems administrator]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I forwarded the web site to my husband's office, and they gave him a card, a plant, and... best of all... a gift certificate to thinkgeek.com. Let's hear it for systems administrators!!!
By the way, I seem to see two different versions: "Systems Administrator" and "System Administrator". Which is correct?
-
Free speech does not preclude accountability in a free society
[Read the article: A little bit more about "anonymous"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is understandable that within a constricted social environment (China, Nazi-Germany, North Korea to name but three) where one might suffer mental or physical torment for speaking out, one would want to exercise their protests through free speech and remain anonymous doing so, in order to avoid the repercussions of being incarcerated or tortured or killed for their views.
In all other cases, we are bound by honor and the courage of our convictions to ensure that we are accounted as responsible for the words that we wield. It is that accountability and that willingness to stand up and identify ourselves as the authors of our beliefs that adds weight and seriousness to those views. In that regard, anything voiced anonymously by anyone, outside the limits of a totalitarian environment, is to be regarded automatically as a lie or without rational substance.
Salon, in reflecting the virtues of an openly democratic society where free speech is worshiped as an inalienable right, does not pose a threat to the mental or physical well-being of it's contributors, and should insist on accountability for contributed views through some unique identification, if not for Salon's sake, then for the sake of it's contributors who do believe in standing up for what they say. If this isn't a reasonable thing to do, then perhaps the editors could tag every anonymous letter with a subtext that reads: "The author of this letter refuses to accept responsibility for their words, and the content is therefore deemed weightless and irrelevant".
If you can't stand for what you say, you shouldn't be standing up to say anything at all.
ejb