Letters to the Editor
Rowyna
Published Letters: 105 Editor's Choice: 36
-
Not Actually That Erasable
[Read the article: A mistake that should last a lifetime]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Um, I don't think comparing Freedom2Ink to henna or a permanent marker is really appropriate. I mean, henna wears off, and you can do it at home. Ditto for permanent marker.
This still requires a trip to a tattoo parlour, and if you DO end up wanting it removed, a costly laser surgery session. You don't just blow on it to make it go away! And unless you book into that laser surgery, it is just as permanent as normal ink.
I'm also interested in some of the info on the website about some of the inks used now breaking down into carcinogenic components when people try to break them down through laser surgery.
Not only that, but as the author of the article seems a prime example -- many of the current inks create allergic reactions (this is what caused the 'bumpiness' of the tat). A friend of mine recently had an allergic reaction to a tattoo, so I can't help but believe it isn't that uncommon (especially with red inks, don't know why).
So, if this new ink creates fewer allergic reactions, and doesn't break down into potentially cancer causing agents when lasered, I think its a good thing. Screw permanence. Nothing is forever, even you. Don't try fooling yourself with some skin art.
-
Do you ever want kids?
[Read the article: Help! I'm a prisoner in a big suburban house!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Maybe the LW just needs to decide what kind of lifestyle he wants. There is nothing inherently wrong in living in either the suburbs or the city. I grew up in a nice house in the 'burbs and drove everywhere. In many ways, I hated it. At university, I moved to a big city on the otherside of the world. I loved it. I still love it, but have begun to come full circle into appreciating the reasons my parents lived in, and raised us kids in the suburbs.
In the next few years I'm plan on starting a family of my own. Living in my tiny delapidated 2 bdr flat (even if it is next to a park) isnt going to cut it when it comes to having kids. Sorry. I desire more space. I could never afford that space in the city I live in. So, its either kids & da burbs, or sex in the city singleton. I think its very hard to have it both ways.
It seems like Carey assumes that we all live in Cali and options like San Fran are just around the corner. It just isn't so.
I grew up in CT, and I don't care how much you love biking and walking places (and I do!) you aren't biking anywhere in 10 degrees with a foot of snow on the ground. Earth to California -- it SNOWS in half the country. So, stick that in your walking trails. Another note to the Cali "new urban" elite -- you're living your life on borrowed water. So enjoy the uptopia while it lasts.
I don't think there is any easy answer for the LW. But in some sense, I think he needs to give a long hard look at what he wants out of life. You can't have everything. If you move out of the big house, it means when you have kids you won't have a backyard. Maybe you can only afford a 2bdr place, so don't plan on having more than 1 kid. You'll be extra tied to your job, because you've specifically moved to be close to work, so don't lose it!
Maybe its not about the house at all, but about "growing up" and having to make adult choices instead of drifting through university. Sometimes decisions are tough and involve crazy sums of money. You'll just have to decide what you want and do it! But do realise there is no perfect answer, and there will always be something about your situation that is imperfect.
-
running for next term
[Read the article: What the Huck?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm with the first poster -- he's in it for 2012.
Afterall, this year's election will be incredibly tough for a republican to win. Who'd even WANT to be that party's 08 nominee? Uphill battle all the way after the choices of the great "Decider".
So, the Huckster can cruise right into 2012, which arguable could be the election with a better reupblican chance for victory.
Just a theory. Afterall, that theory is based on the idea he has some sort of strategy and isn't a complete nutter.
Or maybe he's in it because Chuck Norris won't let him admit defeat...
-
@ nick_r
[Read the article: "Definitely, Maybe"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I was thinking the same thing about the SSRI Inhibitor! Thanks for making me feel like less of a pedantic freak.
Honestly though, who edits this stuff? I think they can lift their game a bit. Just replace "SSRI Inhibitor" (which makes you look like you know enough to use the word "SSRI" and be cool, but not know enough to realise that chucking Inhibitor on the end is redundant... decidedly uncool) with anti-depressant and be done with it.