Letters to the Editor
melthough
Published Letters: 1342 Editor's Choice: 103
-
@cordelia
[Read the article: Is rape ever funny?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I love satire. But this really was just stupid, IMO. The attempt at humor fails because there is no inherent connection between environmental tips and being a murderer, rapist and public masturbator. So the whole thing is surreally flaccid, not witty. Of course, it is a matter of taste. I didn't find it offensive, just rather unfocused and pointless. Satire is supposed to have a point.
What do you see as the point here? Do you really think that environmentalism taken to an extreme would involve physically harming people who litter and buy packaged food? People do talk about "ecoterrorists" sometimes, but most of the people they appear to be referring to are the types who free lab animals or who sit in trees so loggers won't be able to cut them down. They're not murderers and rapists.
-
On early puberty
[Read the article: Answering questions girls are embarrassed to ask]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've seen several references to how girls are growing up faster these days, and I just wanted to point out that this is an oversimplification of a statistic about the average age of menarche, which has only been rigorously studied for fifty years or so. A slight decrease in the average age of menarche among a huge number of girls does not mean that huge numbers of girls are suddenly bleeding at the age of five. Here's a little snippet from Wikipedia; I couldn't find the original study it cites:
"Less than 10% of US girls start to menstruate before 11 years of age, and 90% of all US girls are menstruating by 13.75 years of age, with a median age of 12.43 years. This age at menarche is not significantly different (0.34 years earlier) than that reported for US girls in 1973. Age at menarche for non-Hispanic black girls was significantly earlier than that of white girls at 10%, 25%, and 50% of those who had attained menarche, whereas Mexican American girls were only significantly earlier than the white girls at 25%."
If these stats are trustworthy, we're talking about a four-month difference in the overall average. While that is certainly of interest, I don't think you can look around you and conclude that that average four-month difference is visible in individual girls. There have always been early and late periods. Long before Monsanto invented rBGH, I had menarche at the age of 9. That was well below average, but still *normal*.
-
@Anonymous 1:38 PM
[Read the article: Restoring Pill discounts would be easier than you might think]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Whatever your message was seems to have drowned in the anti-feminist vitriol. Could you clarify without the politics, please?
-
What Romney said was a telling slip.
[Read the article: Romney's not-so-clarifying clarification]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]He answered this question very, very badly, and he is obviously an idiot about both the significance of religion to foreign relations AND the place of religion in government. However, I think it's a little silly to suggest he's prescribing a quota system. There is a difference between saying "there aren't enough people in that group to justify an appointment based on membership in that group" and "each group has to be represented strictly according to their percentage in the population." He could merely have meant that you need to reach a certain threshhold in order to be considered. That's still dumb, mind you. But if you make it into more than he really said, you will end up arguing about whether that's what he meant rather than whether excluding people from your cabinet because of their religion is appropriate.
And that should have been his answer, of course: Cabinet inclusion cannot and should not be based on religious affiliation. Period.
-
Oops, E-man
[Read the article: "Single anxious female" seeks president]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You forgot to check the anonymous box, buddy.
-
Irregardless
[Read the article: Falling for StandUpGirl.com]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]cf. "Irritatingly Irredundant"
The problem with "irregardless" is that "regardless" already means "regardless." "Ir-" means "not." So even if it - like "ain't", contrary to the schoolyard comeback - IS in the dictionary, it still makes you sound like you don't speak no good English.
-
@whaddami
[Read the article: Falling for StandUpGirl.com]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I snagged on that moment too, but didn't articulate why before moving on to the rest of the article. Well put!
(Still appreciated most of the piece, though.)
-
Oh boy.
[Read the article: Falling for StandUpGirl.com]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]LisaSUG, you almost had me there until you said "Today I cannot have a baby because abortion ruined my insides."
BULL. SHIT.
Unless you had an illegal abortion in a hotel room, that is highly unlikely. If you are real person who had a real abortion and you believe this about your "insides," I highly recommend you get yourself a second opinion. But personally I suspect your "insides" are full of something besides scar tissue.
-
p.s. "Lisa"
[Read the article: Falling for StandUpGirl.com]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Concern Trolls ARE traceable, and people like that have been caught before. Just in case you didn't know.
-
I am against spanking
[Read the article: To spank or not to spank?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]but I am also against the government micromanaging parenting. The idea of outlawing spanking altogether scares me, even though I have never hit my kids. It's hard to articulate why - but maybe it's just that I don't want to feel that I'm living in a Panopticon, where my every angry moment with my children is being recorded by Big Brother. (Sorry for mixing the metaphors there.)
-
"[T]he law would be a powerful message"
[Read the article: To spank or not to spank?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Laws. Are. Not. Messages.
-
There oughtta be a law.
[Read the article: To spank or not to spank?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]My nieces and nephews have been visibly and permanently scarred by baby formula, television, Doritos, and the public school system. Shall we criminalize these parenting choices as well?
As many posters have already pointed out, child abuse is already against the law. If you want to change the definition of child abuse in your state, that is fine with me. But widening the definition of child abuse to criminalize every swat on the behind is ridiculous.
I will repeat what I said earlier: I have never spanked my children, because I think spanking children is wrong. But laws are not the way we address, or should address, every moral problem. I have defended a woman's right to have an abortion enough times to understand how this works. You don't get to make a law about something just because it's wrong in your values system. Honestly, I am shocked to see liberals supporting a law like this.