Letters to the Editor
Rowyna
Published Letters: 105 Editor's Choice: 36
-
Brand Recognition
[Read the article: Obama, Clinton and the working class]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The working class voting for Clinton is far more about 'brand recognition' than any policy decisions. It is most likely only a minority of these voters who are paying incredibly close attention to policy decisions (most don't have the time to devote to this sort of thing, nor can they sit at work and read the Salon like the 'white collar' and college kids).
So they are voting for a very recognizable name, with a very recognizable face! Well before the presidential primary race, we were hearing about Hilary Clinton. We've been hearing about her since her husband was in the Whitehouse, since she ran for senate in NY (remember all that 'carpet bagger' hoopla? I do), since she was so hated and smeared by republicans.
Up until a year ago, did ANY of you outside of Illinois, or the regular poli-blogosphere readers know who Obama was? You almost certainly wouldn't have recognized the name, and even if you did, what could you tell me about him? Very little, I'd guess.
So yeah, Clinton is a brand, and a well known one. So, the working class and the elderly are going to vote for her, because they know her. They trust her. She’s a good classic Ford, where Obama is a suspicious Renault.
Personally I think that very same 'brand recognition' is what will put the democratic party under should another Clinton be nominated. Don't underestimate the republicans hatred for all things Clinton. Those who couldn't be bothered to vote FOR McCain, will come out en masse to vote AGAINST another Clinton. It cuts both ways.
-
If you can't afford a pet, don't get one.
[Read the article: What I wouldn't do for my cat]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Seriously. $1,300. Was that it?
If you're going to get a pet, you should be prepared to spend the necessary money to keep your pet in good health. In the cost of animal ownership, you should factor in the cost of $300 a year insurance (this works out to less than $1 a day, which sure as hell doesn't seem like much to me). Was your cat worth $1 a day? Does he provide you with $1 a day worth of love and joy? If not, you probably shouldn't have gotten a cat in the fist place.
I admit that its not all black & white. Would the $1,300 be worth it if your cat had cancer and was likely to die anyway? Perhaps not. If your cat was 15+ years old, and likely near the end of his life? Again, more debatable.
But at 6 years old, you're questioning spending $1300 on a cat who has given you 6 years of love and joy? I'm sorry, but I can't understand that.
You probably spent more at Starbucks over the past 6 yeas. A Lot More.
So please, if you can't spend money on keeping your pet in good health (figure at least $300 a year), don't get a pet in the first place. Its cruel to both the animal and you.
And now, I'm not a crazy ASPCA person. I just believe that if you had $1300 to spend, its better to spend it on keeping your pet alive than something like a vacation or snazzy watch.
-
Does the author support women in the military, or not?
[Read the article: In the military we trust]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Does the author support women in the military, or not? He argues that the military is more representative than many elitist institutions, and cites his a black female Colonel as an example.
He then goes on to say that people join the military as a right of masculine passage. The military, thus, must only be for men. It is their identity defining institution in this 'over feminised' America. So, clearly, there is NO room for women in such a place. After all, if women joined the military, it would no longer be a place of masculine identity. Much like going to university or taking up an office job once were male pursuits that defined one's masculinity, once they've been overrun by women, apparently men are no longer able to take their identity from them.
I was particularly struck by the following quote:
"There could be many opportunities for our young men to assert their masculinity in non-military and non-violent settings -- fixing our nation's roads and bridges, rebuilding our inner cities, rescuing places torn apart by disaster, natural or otherwise, like New Orleans; and from these, too, funded educational openings and future career possibilities could arise."
The author is describing a host of typical male "blue-collar" jobs (miner, firemen, policemen, electrician, plumber, builder). Many of these occupations are inaccessible to women, because of their "keep out" mentality.
The author seems to be in favour of these industries, as well as the US military, staying almost exclusively male in order for men to have the "opportunity to assert their masculinity".
Personally I disagree. I think that women are equal, and should have equal access and support in pursuing these stereotypically male careers.
The author uses physical changes in women's bodies to typify their femineity (menstruation, pregnancy, etc). Last time I checked, men go through puberty and the excitement of becoming a parent as well.
There is more to masculinity than being a good soldier or fireman. The sooner people realise that, the better.
-
the more likely sci fi scenario
[Read the article: Men, guard your genes!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well, while we're being totally out there... isn't it more likely a women will simply impregnante herself with her own genetic material? If you don't have a partner, why involve a man at all? Bring on the clones!
What a silly article. Women who wish to can already impregnate themselves with the sperm of a total stranger -- its called a) a sperm bank or b) a one night stand.
It says a lot about the telegraph that they think this sort of technology would lead masses of women to 'steal men's genetic material' so to speak. Only an aboslute psycho would want to 'steal' anyones skin cells to grow sperm in a lab. But you know, the Telegraph clearly believes that most women are absolute psychos.