Letters to the Editor
jebldmm
Published Letters: 933 Editor's Choice: 164
-
@Heyjude
[Read the article: Stop him if you've heard this one before]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Actually, I've heard a lot of glowing things about Obama. He seems to be the media's golden child at the moment. But it isn't enough to simply report the positives - every candidate has to be vetted. Nobody was reluctant when it came to discussing if Hilary's "tears" were going to hurt her campaign. Nobody hesitated to debate if Edward's wife's cancer would hurt his chance of becoming president. For some reason, however, the media are reluctant to debate anything negative about Obama. I know a lot more about the negatives of Clinton and Edwards than I do about those of Obama. Why?
-
Could you please put in some Edwards comments
[Read the article: Obama campaign: Clinton should renounce remarks]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]He is still running, isn't he? It would be nice to see something about him once in a while, other than the obligatory "He doesn't have a chance, but he's still fighting" nonsense. He's not that far behind in delegates, and he is very much in the race. It would be nice if we had some choices besides Clinton and Obama.
-
This is so sad
[Read the article: The race vs. gender war]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Because I don't want to be a black man, that means that women are better off than black men? That is the among the most ridiculous arguments I've ever read. The argument is based on racist and sexist misconceptions. First, the perception that black men are all poor and in gangs is just false. There are a lot of middle class black men who do very well for themselves. Second, women do not all live in nice, safe, middle class households. Many women live in poverty or barely get by, and many women in all classes live in fear of their husbands but can't leave because they have nowhere to go and no skills to support themselves. The real question shouldn't but "would you rather be a black man or a woman?", it should be "would you be better off as a black man or a woman?", and the answer to that question is clear. Black men, overall, have more opportunities than women in America.
Historically, women have not been free and privileged . We had few rights when this nation was founded. Our right to own property was limited. We weren't allowed to vote because we were more or less property - passed from man to man, husband to spouse, functionally, if not legally. No court would intervene if our spouses beat us or limited our freedom. We weren't allowed to divorce our spouses under either the law or societal decree. Some women had more freedom than others, just like some black people had more freedom than others, but that did not make women free to make their own choices. If you look at the laws regulating women during the era of slavery you will find taht women had few rights that slaves did not, and that women were considered the property of their husbands or fathers. We've come a long way socially, but there are still many issues limiting women of all races.
Black people of all genders should be given the opportunity to grow based on their abiliites. So should women. It's that simple. Both groups have been disadvantaged in the past, and both need to be given more opportunities in the future. Is it that hard to simply say that without demeaning the long struggle that women have faced in gaining the rights that white men have long taken for granted?
-
Capitalism and Survival of the Fittest
[Read the article: How Wall Street broke the free market]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Perhaps we would have done better if our government employees had more knowledge of evolution. Capitalism without regulation is "survival of the fittest", which sounds good until you realize "fitness" does not apply to corporations (populations), it applies to the individuals that run those corporations. Corporations do not have any ability to make decisions that will control their future, any more than populations of individuals can control their destiny. Selection happens to individuals, and the individuals who succeed in society are those who make decisions for their own gain. These decisions may or may not benefit a particular corporation or society at large, as exemplified by CEO's who run a company into the ground while profiting personally from short term stock windfalls. A class of people is "evolving" (I use the term loosely, no genetic changes are happening) that is able to prosper, but the rest of us are falling by the wayside. The rich get richer, the rest of us get poorer. The only way to change this trend is to completely change the way we run businesses. We have to set us systems that reward people for making businesses profitable and providing jobs and benefits to society instead of rewarding them for short term stock gains at the expense of the survival of the corporation. Only regulation (and enforcement of those regulations) can accomplish this - individuals will never act against their self-interest.
-
This is a smart move
[Read the article: Obama, Clinton spar over Michigan's meaning]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I can understand the Democratic Party not counting the votes, they control the rules, but I cannot for the life of me understand why the candidates can't campaign, or especially fundraise, in the state. The primaries are more than just a way of selecting a presidential candidate, they are also a way for candiates to be introduced to the people.