Letters to the Editor
cardshark
Published Letters: 146 Editor's Choice: 18
-
The car
[Read the article: Case closed?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've read numerous books about the case, none of which I've found very convincing (including a skim of the Warren report). It occurred to me some time ago that the most important evidence in the case (besides the body, of course) is the car.
We've all heard that some overzealous cop washed down the car soon after the assassination, and many people take that to be proof of a conspiracy, and assume that this washing destroyed the evidence.
But here's the thing: blood doesn't wash very well. In fact, you can use bleach, soap, comet, or whatever else you like and forensic investigators will still be able to find it.
If the car were available for study, it would prove where the bullets came from, plain and simple. The spray of blood from the impact of the bullets, and the pattern it formed left an indelible and incontrovertible mark.
So where is it? Why doesn't it factor more prominently in the case?
Ask yourself, who could have gotten rid of it? Could the Mafia pull off a trick like that?
I think not.
From what I've read, it was dismantled and shipped off somewhere, and nobody knows exactly where it is right now.
Everyone talks about the magic bullet, the extra shot on the police radio, Oswald's CIA connections, etc.
The absence of the key evidence in the case is proof of a coverup. A coverup is proof of a conspiracy. QED. The only way out is to argue that the govt wasn't involved in the killing, but helped cover it up for some other reason. Plenty of authors have attempted this argument. It just doesn't work for me.
-
Whether you love them or not you need to act like it
[Read the article: I wish my stepchildren would go away]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I really don't feel sorry for you a bit, woman. You knew what you were getting into when you got into it!
I do respect you for realizing that your behavior and your attitude is a problem. Bottom line, you need to act as though you love these children, whether you do or not. You've already done some damage to your credibility with them, so you can't just be lovey-dovey tomorrow, but you have to make a start. Your letter's tone, while exhonorating the children, attempts to gain our sympathy. Ironically, I feel sympathy for everyone in your story except for you.
You made your choice with eyes wide open. These kids have no choice.
Grow up.
-
There's no need to resort to abortion to guarantee father's rights
[Read the article: A man's right to choose -- a second take on Dalton Conley]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is really simple. If I don't want to be a father, I should have the right to say so while my partner is pregnant. If my partner then chooses to have the child, it is her choice, not mine, and therefore her responsibility.
Allowing men to force an abortion is a ridiculously unconscionable idea. Allowing men to assert the right of abdication before the child is born is, in my opinion, a reasonable alternative.
-
After reading the responses
[Read the article: A man's right to choose -- a second take on Dalton Conley]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'd like to respond to the apparently prevailing opinion that if men don't want to be fathers, they should just keep it in their pants.
This is inherently an unfair notion. First of all, the only birth control available to a man is the condom. Condoms are not 100% foolproof, they do break sometimes. If a woman wishes not to become pregnant, she has much more effective options at her disposal.
Furthermore, what if the man, in all good faith, believes his partner is on birth control, and the woman sabotages that protection? She holds the cards at this point and can force her man into a life of servitude and parenthood that he did not choose for himself. Is this fair?
You could say, "well, don't have sex then, if you don't want to be a father". This is also unfair. Women can have sex with no fear of pregnancy, and this attitude seems like a throwback to a time when condoms were outlawed, except for disease prevention.
I reiterate my previous letter: allow men the right of abdication within a certain time frame of the pregnancy. The woman may choose to have the baby if she so wishes, but the man may opt out of raising/providing for it. It is the only fair solution to this inherent inequity.
-
What a ridiculous argument
[Read the article: A man's right to choose, take three]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm sorry Farhad, but you've gone from one end of the ridiculous spectrum to the other. Life's not fair, indeed!
When women wanted the right to vote, did "Life's not fair" stop them from obtaining justice?
When people clamored for the right to use birth control, did "Life's not fair" stop them?
Did the supreme court say "Life's not fair" to Jane Roe?
If my girlfriend decides she wants a baby, whether I like it or not, and sabotages the birth control, forcing me into parenthood, well, I guess life's not fair, is it? She has the right to do that because she has a womb, and if I don't like it I should just masturbate.
If men had the right of abdication, early in the pregnancy, this sort of occurrence would be very rare indeed. As long as women have all the rights, and men have none, well, I guess life won't be very fair.
-
Oh darn
[Read the article: Suspended from work over emergency contraception]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I can't do my Christmas shopping at Walgreens either? Because I was planning to get my mom that nice tube of Colgate she's had her eye on for so long.