Letters to the Editor
Anonymust
Published Letters: 1861 Editor's Choice: 74
-
Ambiguous headline
[Read the article: Rockettes refused maternity leave]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When I first read your headline (admittedly late at night), I wondered why Rockettes would be opposed to maternity leave. Of course, I had immediately corrected my error by the end of the first paragraph.
We live in a world where only declarative statements seem to carry any weight any more.
Might I suggest a less ambiguous, and much more outrageous headline?
"Cablevision promotes abortions among dancers union."
-
Sexism in the Plame Case
[Read the article: The unmanning of Joe Wilson]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yep. You've read my mind. The sexism of this case had already been bothering me, but something about the language of today's stories made me want to write someone about it.
In fact, I've had a small epiphany... sexism is much more than an end; it's also a tool used to wield power. And not just over women.
That seems so obvious now. Why do I see it differently now than I did before? Probably because over the weekend I watched a PBS special, "Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories," a program about how easy it is for abusive husbands to gain custody of their children.
-
a Counter-intuitive Proposal
[Read the article: An up-or-down vote for Alito? Sometimes, even elephants forget]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Perhaps when things settle down a bit more, some one among the Democrats (Harry Reid and/or Patrick Leahy?) will try and take the pulse of the more moderate Republicans, both on the Judiciary Committee and in the Senate as a whole.
If there seem to be enough moderate Republicans who are also aghast at the extreme positions Alito has taken (apparently, a real possiblity), maybe the combined force of the moderate Republicans and the Democrats can defeat Alito's nomination with a simple up-or-down vote, but completely bypass the whole filibuster issue. The neocons already have the nomination they so desperately crave; so, give them the up-or-down vote they feel entitled to, but without the Battle Royale they lust after, and without the win they have been planning for decades. Now, wouldn't that just frost the fundamentalist right-wing groups?!
It would be my fondest wish... because then it would be absolutely clear that the far-right really is out of step with mainstream values, not just on abortion, but on many other issues. And, instead of blaming GWB for all of their latest misfortunes, they might have to consider that the recent failures of hard-edged GOP (would-be) polices happened because they don't really speak to or for most Americans.
(Note: I sincerely doubt that any of the moderate Republicans are really anxious to activate the nuclear option; however, they might be willing to consider voting against Alito.)
-
R: We've started with the same equation: 44 + 7 = 51....
[Read the article: An up-or-down vote for Alito? Sometimes, even elephants forget]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...but I've also got Jeffords on my list, and am also wondering about:
Hagel (who is something of a maverick), Voinovich (who we already know has a conscience), Domenici (who cares about Environmental and ADA issues, and whose constituency includes a lot of Hispanics), Michael Enzi, Grassley, Mel Martinez (Environment), even Santorum (LOL... since he's trying to distance himself from Bush in his uphill battle against Casey who is also pro-life), John Warner (who cares about the Environment, as well as military & veterans affairs), Gordon Smith (who believes in stewardship), and even Richard Shelby (in spite of his stance on reproductive issues, and because of his interest in Asbestos Litigation Reform, and Clinical Weapons Disposal). Any of these issues is likely to come before the court in the near future.
Except for Shelby, I've left off my list those who seem so completely conservative that there's no room for them to consider issues that are important to them other than reproductive (non-)rights. And, after taking abortion & contraception off the table... the anecdotal evidence on Alito clearly reveals his favoritism of the big guys over the little guy. Do any of the senators above really want to see (or be responsible for) major backsliding on any of their issues, just so they can exercise even more control over women's reproductive rights? Especially now, when Bush has less clout?
I don't really think the interest groups are going to have much (of a desired) effect on most of these senators, but they might pay attention to individual, thoughtful, and tailored letters about the impact an Alito on the court would probably have on their particular interests.