Letters to the Editor
melthough
Published Letters: 1264 Editor's Choice: 102
-
Something is missing.
[Read the article: Stop lying to yourself. You love Dennis Kucinich]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Have you ever taken the Belief-o-matic quiz at http://www.beliefnet.com/story/76/story_7665_1.html?
It says I'm a Unitarian Universalist (a.k.a. atheist with children). Which intellectually is probably true. But spiritually I am a Quaker, and I don't come up as such on the quiz. On this Match-o-Matic or whatever, I do support Kucinich's policies. And I already knew I did in real life. I think he's a great guy. But something is missing. I am not one to vote on personality or electability, but there ARE legitimate intangibles that come into play when I vote. I see John Edwards as more a more effective leader whose policies are pretty darn close to what I want. Kucinich knows he's not going to win; he's a leftward reality check at every debate - and I am very, very grateful for his fortitude and honesty and pacifism and vegan lifestyle. I will even vote for him in the primary to say thank you for keeping the progressive reality - MY reality - on the table. But he's still not my favorite candidate.
-
Public shaming
[Read the article: "30 Reasons Girls Should Call It a Night"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]To me, the problem with the public shaming here is that both the shamed and the shamers are getting off on it in a major way. EW. And whoever said things are not worse now than they were 20 years ago, you may be right - but we'll never know. There are plenty of things my parents did that I'm glad I'll never know about, thank you, and plenty I did that I'm glad my children won't be able to google for. People have always done stupid stuff. The difference now is that our culture no longer recognizes, teaches or rewards basic human decency. (cf. 'vajayjay' as a legitimate topic of public conversation.) It's disgusting.
-
Mr. Kunt
[Read the article: Working women's "absence culture"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm so glad you've finally come out of the closet as a single poster with a single pseudonym.
-
The FGM is a red herring
[Read the article: Female genital mutilation is like losing a limb?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As the board said, it is horrible, but it already happened. Clearly it's inconsistent with rulings on forced sterilization, but it seems like the way to remedy that is not to let past FGM victims eligible for asylum but to make forced sterilization victims ineligible. It may sound brutal, but the point of asylum is to keep things from continuing to happen, and neither of those things can continue to happen. To me, there is a much greater problem with the impending forced marriage. Why this is not grounds for asylum for a person who has been living in the U.S. (not for masses of forced-marriage refugees, since the numbers would get very huge very quickly) I cannot understand. I can only be grateful that I was born here.
And to the idiot who thinks removing a foreskin is akin to removing someone's entire labia and clitoris - it's like comparing removal of part of someone's eyelid to removal of their entire eyeball. I am against BOTH. But they are not the same.
-
Legalize prostitution already
[Read the article: No more "Asian bunnies"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I hope NOW is also working toward regulated legalization of prostitution. Otherwise, this is a losing battle. The main reason prostitutes are vulnerable to exploitation is that it IS a black market. And in a sane universe, there's no reason why it should be. Unfortunately, that's not the universe we live in. This country is getting more and more bizarre by the day, and I don't even think we've hit bottom yet.
I would be interested to see some statistics - or even intelligent speculation - about how many of the advertisers in question are actually traffickers of sex slaves, as opposed to run-of-the-mill domestic prostitution rings. It really bugs me to see NOW acting like religious fundamentalists. Isn't there a better way to get at the heart of this issue than by trying to control what other people read?
-
A 'second offender' because she gave two hugs?
[Read the article: Quote of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Clearly these folks have no idea what 'second offender' means. The rule obviously suggests it means you already got a warning and you are ignoring the rule for a second time.
Stop her before she hugs again! Oh! My! God!
There are definite limits to the level of physical affection that is appropriate in public. Rules like this do ZERO to help students learn what these limits are. At my kids' school, the girls hold hands and hug each other constantly. It's called friendship, and it's encouraged. We pay a lot of money for private school just so our kids can be treated as human beings.
-
Not out of line???
[Read the article: Quote of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Domini, the policy forbids "any display of affection at any time." That IS out of line.
Also, the school officials are not enforcing the policy as written. You are supposed to get a warning upon the first "offense" and get a detention for the second one. She didn't get a warning. Both hugs happened at nearly the same time! How can the second hug be a second "offense"? If she didn't get a warning after the first hug, it's not fair to give her detention. She should get a warning. Also, if the second hug is the purported second offense, she should only get a detention for that one. She got two detentions, "one for each hug."
The school board passed a stupid, totally un-nuanced rule, and the principal enforced it with the hamhandedness of an authoritarian control freak.
Even in the "real," adult world, enforcement of laws and punishments are subject to the discretion of judges and juries. Kids in schools get the benefit of no such discretion because it's supposed to be more "fair" that way. But it's less fair.
Schools are supposed to be safe, nurturing places for kids to learn. Not prisons. Jesus Christ.