Letters to the Editor
cincinnatus
Published Letters: 49 Editor's Choice: 5
-
Commodity Cost versus Service Cost
[Read the article: Las Vegas gym case tests "Ladies Night law" ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Somehow we've created a false parallel between the cost of alcohol and the cost of a haricut.
Price differentials on alcohol (or gym equipment for that matter) based on gender are exactly what they appear to be. The alcohol costs the bar the same no matter who drinks it, so lowering the price based on who or what a person is is -- well, what it is.
A haircut, on the other hand, is a service. I'm not going to say that there isn't discrimination against blacks in the haircut biz. Maybe there is, maybe not. I'm not going to say that we don't have a cultural stereotype that makes it easy to charge more to cut a woman's hair than a man's.
What I will say is that there can be and probably are actual service factors related to price. For example, are typical woman's styles more complex than the average male "haircut"? Is the volume of hair different? Are there other components (like a shampoo) to the service at a stylist or salon than there are at the typical barber shop? I know I pay more if I want a shave and a haircut (two bits!). Are the treatments, tools, and expertise needed to give a good "ethnic" haircut such that they might reasonably raise the price? I don't know for sure, but those are all factors that might legitimately play a role in the cost of having your hair "done."
-
@Thrasher
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thrasher,
I admire your confidence and your desire to mix it up and educate us white folks. It will be good for us to hear some straight talk about race. However, if you are indeed "pro-black" as you say, then I think you are, by definition, racist. I'll leave room for the possibility that I'm wrong about that depending on what you mean by "pro-black" since I can't interpret that for you.
Like you, maybe I need to go back and re-read King's article and your posts. I'm truly confused about why you consider his article to be lacking or in some way racist. My recollection of it is that he talked about the chances of Vick returning to the NFL. I'm not sure how that is racist.
I think King has demonstrated a history of supportive commentary on racial issues. If you care to, I'd be interested in your deeper analysis of the racist aspects of the article.
-
@Ann in NYC
[Read the article: Las Vegas gym case tests "Ladies Night law" ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Interesting. I didn't know that, though it makes a lot of sense. I wonder, though, whether the differential actually would justify the price break we're talking about. Still, good to know.
-
@awesome-o
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You're wrong about Thrasher. I don't know if he's a racist yet, and I don't always find his writing easy to understand. However, I don't find his comments to be whiny and he clearly doesn't play the victim. That fact, alone, makes him a pretty good example for anyone trying to get out of a ghetto.
At least he's here mixing it up and laying it out there. He's not going to let himself be defined by white folk, good or bad. If he were standing up for white culture, you'd applaud his behavior. So pick apart his arguments, disprove his facts, but stop making the personal attacks. No one can make you do it, but it's the right thing to do.
-
News as Entertainment
[Read the article: The role of political reporters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Inventing exciting dramatic narratives and predicting outcomes just isn't the role of a political reporter, even thought it's what most of them to do to the exclusion of all else."
Now that news departments are dominated and often run by the media corporations' entertainment divisions, news has become nothing more than a reality show. Reporters have abandoned their historical and civic roots and now do nothing more than shill for their entertainment overlords. Unfortunately, that means they are fulfilling their current job descriptions.
-
Concession Speech?
[Read the article: Clinton goes straight back to stumping after loss]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Somebody help me out here: why in the world would anyone give a concession speech or care whether someone did? Of course Clinton moved on; she has work to do.
Putting any emphasis on a concession speech is pretty dumb. This is a contest for the Democratic nomination. One state isn't the ballgame. This talking point about the concession is like criticizing a football coach for not going over to the other sideline and congratulating the other coach on "winning" the first quarter.
At the convention or when you lose the nomination, that's when you concede. This state-by-state analysis is getting way out of hand when we criticize a candidate for not sticking around to give concession speeches.
-
Mixed Message
[Read the article: "The dangerous protectionism of Barack Obama"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm confused by your characterization of Obama's plan as "heavy-handed government interference." I have not read the bill, but as you lay it out, it sounds benign enough. It's not a law prohibiting businesses from moving out of the U.S. or outsourcing jobs. It's merely a tax-break to encourage companies to meet certain criteria that he believes would be beneficial to U.S. workers and our economy. How is that heavy-handed? How is that any different than the deals some of these foreign governments put together to entice businesses to do business in their countries?
As you've described it, this seems like a plan to mitigate some of the tax burden on businesses to put more money directly into the hands of American workers -- money which will be taxed -- and to help ensure that more workers get adequate health care. How is this bad, again? When did we stop thinking it was ok to help businesses remain competitive in the global marketplace? This isn't a trade sanction. This isn't protectionism. So what am I missing (or perhaps what is missing from your post)?
-
Every Problem Is An Opportunity
[Read the article: War cheerleaders ask: "Is Obama man enough to be president?"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Maybe Democrats should push all of their chips to the middle of the table: Obama and Hillary vs. George Bush and Dick Cheney in a winner take all cage match. Let's see how manly George and his Dick (or is it Dick and his Bush) really are. My money is on Obama and Clinton to clean the floor with the faux warriors.