Letters to the Editor
Rowyna
Published Letters: 105 Editor's Choice: 36
-
Migraines and forced compliance
[Read the article: The light-bulb wars switch on again]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I too suffer hideous migraines and eyestrain brought on by CFLs (and other fluorescents). I do my best by the environment though. From using greenbags to driving a vespa to NOT using an air conditioner (even when the days are 100+ deg F), I feel like I'm making more of an effort than a lot of people.
So when the Australian Government decides to ban incandescents, it really REALLY annoys me. Its a diversion. A way for the Government to be "doing something" when they’re actually just diverting attention away from the real (harder to solve) issues of climate change and energy sources.
Meanwhile, I look like the bad guy stocking up on incandescents so that I don't suffer from debilitating headaches. What a ridiculous world.
Also, on the 'incandescents providing heat' front, my partner and I keep three reptiles. Their enclosures all rely on incandescent light globes to provide both light and the required amount of heat. Using a heatpad or ceramic light fixture would eat up a lot more energy and both are less cost-effective. What do I tell them? Sorry guys, no more heat for you?
I'm so over governments using this issue as a diversion away from the real problems. Want to save some energy? Don't ban incandescents. Try taxing coal fired power plants. Try giving real subsidies to solar power. Why not raise the tax on petrol, then use that to subsidise public transport? Just piss off on the CFLs frankly. They're an inferior technology, and cause a host of problems for a lot of people (and reptiles!)
-
social security stock investments
[Read the article: Who killed global capitalism?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Social security might not be in stocks, but most people's 401Ks are. Lets face facts, with the rising cost of fuel and food, retirees need far more than the paltry SS cheques.
Few companies offer pensions, and for my generation SS will probably be a fuzzy memory by the time I'm retirement age (an age which seems to keep getting pushed up, funnily enough). All I'll have is a 401K (and my Australian superannuation... same thing as a 401K).
So, yeah, stock crashes aren't so good for the shuffle-board set either. Especially if they were planning on living off something other than baked beans in a can for the next year.
-
she might not be a 'terrorist', but she isn't a non-violent protester either
[Read the article: Is Briana Waters a terrorist?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Clearly the law has been skewed in the past 7 years to prevent government dissidents from voicing their opinions. Meanwhile the FBI and CIA have had ever increasing powers, which more often than not trample all over American citizen's constitutionally granted liberty.
Also, clearly killing or attempting to kill others is far worse than merely starting a fire... so 2 consecutive 5 year sentences does sound like overkill.
However -- Briana Waters might not be a terrorist, but she SHOULD be serving jail time.
Anyone who participates in a crime, no matter what their motivations, should have to deal with the consequences of that crime. Don't tell me Waters didn't know that arson was illegal. Maybe she didn't light the match herself, but I have strong doubts that she knew NOTHING of the plans. She is a scapegoat, without doubt. But she still bears some responsibility for her actions and her choices.
What if their careful plan had gone awry? What if another person had been in the building, and died of heart attack or smoke inahlation? What if the fire had gotten out of hand? There are reasons it is illegal to light buildings on fire. Its dangerous, and as this case shows, it can destroy valuable research.
So yeah, terrorist, I think not. But someone who should be serving some jail time? Yeah. Lock her up. But not for 10 years. Maybe 10 months.
-
Fox vs BBC
[Read the article: In memory of Gordon Ramsay]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What's that? The Fox network took a good show and ruined it with the addition of "conflict" (read: shouting) and talentless hacks? Oh my goodness, surprise of surprises!
Seriously though, look at the demographic of people who watch Fox vs those who watch the BBC. I think all answers can be found right there.
Ramsay is OK. The British version of Kitchen Nightmares is better than the American one, although there is a certain entertainment value to the American one, namely where do they source such terrible/psychotic "chefs"?
I've always found the Hell's Kitchen thing to be a rip off of Jamie Oliver. Like a ruder more swear-a-rific Jamie.
I think that Ramsay does have an entertaining personality, although it gets diluted into "angry British man, who will blow up at least 10 times this episode" in American TV.
To be honest though, were I throwing a dinner party, I'd be sure to invite Mr Oliver before Mr Ramsay. Much more polite conversation. I'd be sure to have drinks with Ramsay afterwards though.
-
how can rape NOT involve violence?
[Read the article: Rape is like force-fed chocolate cake?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ok, looking past the source of this quote being from the BNP...
Maybe this is a really naive question, but how can a rape not be violent?
Unless a women is drugged, or incredibly afraid of violence (most likely because it has occured in the past), how can a "non-violent" rape occur?
If someone says "no" and resists an assualt (of any nature), presisting in physically forcing someone to do something is by definition violent.
So yeah. I can't really understand how this nut-jobs comments even make sense (in OR out of context).
Perhaps he SHOULD spend some time in a hardcore British jail, so he can experience first-hand the "non-violent" nature of rape.