Letters to the Editor
dendrio
Published Letters: 200 Editor's Choice: 27
-
Dear Cary:
[Read the article: Betrayal Week, Day 2: I was fired for doing my job as a teacher]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I, for one, didn't object to having a theme week, but, like many others have indicated, I didn't think today's letter was worth printing or responding to. Its lack of detail made it hard to see just how the LW was betrayed. We were asked to take it for granted that the LW was an awe-inspiringly good teacher who was sacked for spurious reasons. That and the LW's pretentiousness was the twin-fisted blow that turned your readers against today's column.
I think Betrayal Week would work well if the LW's were clear in how they were betrayed and if they were asking for some specific advice on how to deal with it.
-
Woohoo!
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm letter 69!
The Superbowl is over. Colts won. End of story.
The commercials were lame. End of story.
I thought all of this was laid to rest yesterday.
Here's to hoping tomorrow's column has nothing to do with football (unless it's Aussie Rules) or mechanics accidentally packing fudge (bars).
-
Off Topic ... Theology 101
[Read the article: "Take Back the Date"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Theology 101" explanations are little more than rationalizations of why pre-Christian pagan holidays were/are celebrated by Christians.
Valentine's Day, for instance, started out at the Roman pagan holy day of Lupercalia, a celebration of purity & fertility that entailed animal sacrifices, feasting, naked races through the streets, and the ritual flogging of virgins.
The Christianized empire banned most of the pagan rites, but recognizing the importance of the holiday to the plebes, it allowed the feasting to continue under the auspices of St. Valentine.
-
On Topic...
[Read the article: "Take Back the Date"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've dated several avowed feminists and married one. Not one of them objected to my opening a door for them or paying for a meal. Conversely, not one of them expected that I always do so, and I've had girlfriends who payed for my dinner from time to time.
For me being considerate, generous, and yes, romantic, has nothing to do with keeping a woman in her place and everything to do with showing her that care for her.
Methinks that the phrase "radical feminist" has become little more than anti-feminist construct, a straw-woman that little reflects the real views of real, flesh-and-blood feminists (whose ultimate argument is that women, like men, are ends-in-themselves, i.e. human beings).
I think this straw-woman is typified by the fact that the rabid anti-feminists are fond of quoting Dworkin (often out of context) and other feminists whose ideas have had little currency since the 1980's.
-
More Problems with Guns for Self Defense, Or: Back Off Topic
[Read the article: "Take Back the Date"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Because a gun is a lethal weapon, it's use for self-defense if fraught with all kinds of practical and legal problems.
Practical Problems: Do you intend to kill? Or even maim? If not, what are you going to do if an assailant calls your bluff? If so, see Legal Problems.
Legal Problems: A private citizen using deadly (or potentially deadly) force against an attacker can look forward to facing any number of charges ranging from assault with a deadly weapon, to involuntary manslaughter, to second degree murder. Even if she is cleared of any criminal culpability, she may face a civil suit from her attacker or his/her family. Even if all legal matters are settled with no criminal or civil penalty, she can look forward to large legal bills.
Solutions: DurianJoe covered this: Pepper spray, flashlight-nightstick, and/or practical martial arts training.
I think Conservatives always go for the gun because they're still enamoured by the legends of frontier, quick-draw justice and the Southern Code Duello. Newsflash: The frontier is closed and the duellists killed each other off. Second Newsflash: A gun is a deadly weapon, not an accessory. To paraphrase Jesus and Marshal Dillon, "Those who live by the gun, die by the gun."
-
I've Been Watching A Lot of Hong Kong Cimema Lately...
[Read the article: Jonah Goldberg's very bad bet]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]NeoCon: My NeoCon Fu is unbeatable! With it I can even defeat gravity! [adopts goofy kungfu stance, waves arms wildly, hyperventilates, kicks at imaginary foes KYA!
Liberal: No you can't. If you understand how gravity works, you can resist it, and with enough force you can break escape from a particular celestial body's gravity well, but you can't "defeat gravity," and certainly not with NeoCon Fu.
NeoCon: Defeatist! Gravity appeaser! I say that Gravity has been holding us down long enough! Who knocked down the Twin Towers on 9/11? Gravity, that's who!
Liberal: If you jump off that cliff, first you'll hit those rocks, then you'll roll down that slope. Maybe, if you're still conscious, you'll grab onto a root or something that will keep you from falling into the chasm itself ... perhaps we should just go back to filling in that trench we dug in Afghanis-
NeoCon: ENOUGH, you gravity lover! Now behold... SHAWK AND AAAAWWWWE FIST![ leaps off cliff, sails beautifully through the air, then bounces painfully from rock to rock, slides down embankment, foot miraculously hooks under a root; NeoCon dangles disoriented and upside down]
Liberal: [shouting down] HEY! LET'S GET YOU OUT OF THERE!
NeoCon: Nonsense! If we quit now then gravity will have won! What's you're plan?
Liberal: [still shouting down] PLAN? WHY NOT USE YOUR NEOCON FU TO GET OUT OF THERE!
NeoCon: Stop shouting! You Liberals are so uncivil!
NEXT EPISODE: Ever politic, Liberal watches on as NeoCon takes on the Mullahs of Electro-Magnetism.
-
Pots Call Kettle Black. Film at 11.
[Read the article: Pelosi's plane: The U.S. House or "Animal House"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Once again, the Republicans accuse their opposition of the very sins they've been committing for the past 12 years. When they did it, it was just a case of "to the victor goes the spoils" and "that's how the system works." When the Democrats do it, even if they're really not, it's "an abuse of power."
The Republicans - and the media - of course, don't see this criticism of Pelosi as hypocritical because no one really expects Republican politicians to be truthful, honest, or honorable in the peformance their duties to the Republic. No, as usual, it's the do-gooders who are accused of not being good enough - of being hypocrites, while the do-badlies get a pass because no one expects them to do good in the first place.