Letters to the Editor
Anonymust
Published Letters: 2118 Editor's Choice: 74
-
Oh, good grief! What is happening to Salon?
[Read the article: I married the coach's daughter]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As much as I love the idea of Salon's new commenting feature, I'm beginning to think it might be a mistake... where are all of these close-minded, non-compassionate, black-and-white-thinking, folks coming from? And not just on this story, either. I've noticed the same thing on a number of others. (I love Cary Tennis's columns, for example, but am mostly hating the comments.) Aren't there some neocon blogs or sites that could benefit from such an invasion?
As for Gene Lyons... I can't think of any writer more appropriate to the Salon venue than he is. A veteran writer on both sports and politics, he has, in fact, co-authored a book on the right-wing vendetta against the Clintons with Salon's own Joe Conason. Try googling him for more, on both sports and politics. You just might be surprised.
Or, perhaps, I just like him because he agrees with me so often. For example, in Lyons' view, the NYTimes coming clean (sort of) about WMD coverage is not nearly enough. Like me, he also seems to think that the Times cannot really get out from under its dark cloud without also coming clean (finally!) about its Whitewater coverage (what a euphemism!)... and he includes Ms. Dowd in his indictment. Justly, in my opinion.
So, when I saw this article by him, I clicked, thinking, Aha! a little personal story about Gene Lyons. After all, who among us doesn't like to learn something about what makes a good writer tick?
FYI... I'm not a real sports fan. At all. In my book, Organized Sports is just one more Organized Religion that has taken over as much cultural turf as it can get away with. Nor am I nearly as good a sport about men watching sports, much less male humor, as Lyons' wife is; still, I found his story charming. And rare. Most of the comments, on the other hand, have been uncommonly common.
Maybe this story really belonged on Broadsheet... ? where the discussion is more open-minded. For heaven's sake, the guy hardly wrote a thing about himself (at least not directly), preferring to focus on his wife, and some of the other people who have so enriched his life. Yep, relationships. Guess that makes this piece chick lit, huh?
And to think that there were/are some actual skeptics about the need for Broadsheet!
-
more than pink cadillacs
[Read the article: Mary Kay is calling ... Chinese women]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is worth noting, here on Broadsheet, exactly how Mary Kay Ash practiced the Golden Rule.
In addition to cancer research, her foundation also works to stem the tide of domestic violence, donating to women's shelters across the country: http://www.mkacf.org/BreakTheSilence.html
I first became aware of this when watching the PBS special: Breaking the Silence: Children's Stories, which documents the long-term effects of domestic violence on children. Mary Kay's foundation helped make the program possible.
-
Differences in degree, rather than kind
[Read the article: Honor killings in the liberated Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Speaking of blaming the victim... did you miss this story, which finally appeared in Broadsheet on Wednesday?
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/index.html?blog=/mwt/broadsheet/2005/12/07/rape_victim_found_guilty/index.html
-
on being hostage to one's body
[Read the article: A man's right to choose, take five]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]wishes for sons
by Lucille Clifton
i wish them cramps.
i wish them a strange town
and the last tampon.
I wish them no 7-11.
i wish them one week early
and wearing a white skirt.
i wish them one week late.
later i wish them hot flashes
and clots like you
wouldn't believe. let the
flashes come when they
meet someone special.
let the clots come
when they want to.
let them think they have accepted
arrogance in the universe,
then bring them to gynecologists
not unlike themselves.
~~~~~
Further, I would add, that for women, having children is always a negative, financially, unlike for men (child support not withstanding), as men typically earn more money with each child, while women earn less. (For unmarried parents, the rules for men, if there are any, may differ, tho' not usually for women.)
Why should/do women have to choose between their own financial security and having children? Because they they can't have both. Why do so many women and children live in poverty in this country? Because they have no choice. Why are the men writing in these threads more concerned with their own "reproductive disability" than with the children living in poverty? Because they can be.
So, where are all of the men who are so concerned with "Fairness" while women sill earn less than men, and if they have children, considerably less, over their lifetimes, while men can expect to earn more? When men start stepping up to the plate on this issue, they will have a whole lot more credibility when asking for some "say," in pregnancy. But, I'm not holding my breath...
-
Can you imagine a similar front-running candidate here?
[Read the article: An atheist and divorced single mom for president of Chile?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Whether she is first or not, elected or not, in the Americas (North or South), seems less relevant than a simple comparison between Chile and the U.S.
A similar female candidate could NOT be a front-runner, much less elected, here. Any ONE of her characteristics, divorced or single mother or being an atheist (not to mention being a member of the Socialist Party), would prevent a woman being elected president here. Or even being taken seriously as a candidate.
And even a man could not be elected here if he were a self-professed atheist. Not a chance.