Letters to the Editor
Prolix
Published Letters: 18 Editor's Choice: 2
-
Troubling Equation
[Read the article: The "plagiarism" problem]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm troubled that the "plagiarism" message might be a subtle attempt at equating Obama with MLK and marginalizing him racially, as was attempted through a similar equation to Jesse Jackson in South Carolina.
It's not really plagiarism:
The section of Obama's speech that is supposedly plagiarized is a collection of quotes that are obvious references to famous speeches or documents. So his act of "plagiarism" consists of 1. picking most of the same quotes and 2. using the phrase "just words?". It's not really even a full intellectual gesture, and would probably pass muster in court where fair use outside of copyright. That he has permission to use it makes it almost a non-issue.
-
It's Mostly Public Domain
[Read the article: The "plagiarism" problem]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Most of the words in Patrick's, and Obama's, paragraphs, are public domain. The only words Obama uses in the paragraph in question that are Patrick's are "just words". Two words.
Politicians continuously borrow and build on one another's ideas. Seriously, at this point, we are talking about two monosyllabic words, and Obama has even apologized for the incident.
I will very happily vote for Obama in November, or I will happily vote for Clinton. I am annoyed at the tricks every politician plays, so I don't watch TV.
The right wants the left to murder itself over goofy, insignificant disagreements. Many of us are playing into their hands by putting the amplifying force of the internet to very poor use.
-
About Abortion
[Read the article: How to turn white evangelicals into Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As someone who worked as a counselor for a rape crisis center for several years, I would like to add this perspective, which may be helpful when talking to Christians.
Most people (and most Christians) believe that victims of rape should not be forced to carry any resulting pregnancy to term.
Yet, rape is not a reasonably legally enforceable exception; in a Pro-Life legal framework, if you have to prove that you've been raped in order to have access to RU486, the legal burden of proof is suddenly upon the victim (the victim is presumed "guilty" until proven innocent in the eyes of the law). Or you would have to get a police officer or doctor to support your claim, which would lead to massive abuse of the system (pro-choice officials willing to lie).
This is all to say that, and make no mistake about it, a Pro-Life legal framework would put the burden of proof upon all rape victims who became pregnant, and would essentially force a protracted legal resolution, advancing the pregnancy far beyond "the morning after."
This is a good illustration for why, even if someone views most abortions as morally wrong, he or she should allow that making them legally impossible would be a huge disservice to a significant but generally unsung (because generally very quiet) group of women.
-
The Right to Determine
[Read the article: How to turn white evangelicals into Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Um, if you think that people should be able to choose to have a legal abortion, then you're ... pro ... choice?
What is it about the label that makes you uncomfortable?
A huge number of my family and friends belong to the evangelical movement, and, while I strongly disagree with them on matters political, I do not disown them because of their religious choices.
Here's how I (try to) talk to them about abortion.
The term "pro-choice", to them (not to me), sounds too trivial. They are aware of the dictionary definition of the concept "choice", but have heard it so often that it rings false for them. Sort of like how the GOP uses "demagogue" to mean "democrat" so often that it starts sounding like a synonym. Or if someone asks you if you want to "conserve" your buying and spending power, doesn't that make you a "conservative".
"Choice" to a Christian sounds like Folgers vs. Taster's Choice, Chevy vs. Ford, a trivial decision. If I use the phrase "right to determine" rather than "right to choose", I can usually come to some sort of understanding. Yes, this is a stupid way of using synonyms to mean the same thing, but if that's what it takes to clear the mist in front of the eyes, I'll use the different language.
-
What Do You Have Against Tragically Opinionated People?
[Read the article: Why Apple fans hate tech reporters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hey, quit licking the non-tragically-opinionated people's balls!
People need unmodulated condensed-espresso-strength wackyscreeds!
Yay, twenty-first-century internet!
-
Ooh, ooh, I know the answer to this one!
[Read the article: "Today, I weep for my country"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I needed to loyally support my president at the time, for the good of the troops, even if I disagreed with him in private.
/washes hands
-
Hey, everybody . . .
[Read the article: The worst, sleaziest press corps possible]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Don't join in, here. If something is obviously this ugly, don't hitch your wagon to it.
I'm voting democrat in November. I like Obama but not so much that I'll throw my friends under a bus to get him in office.
Don't join in.