Letters to the Editor
blunderdog
Published Letters: 509 Editor's Choice: 10
-
Oh, BTW
[Read the article: Quote of the day: It's a gynocracy!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The original post sucked. I truly can't even figure out what the author is attempting to communicate.
I get the impression that this is an effort to call attention to the fact that there's a lot of ignorant, sexist bullshit on Fox radio.
I don't listen to Fox radio much, so if that WAS the point, well...thanks for the heads-up.
-
I actually know the answer to this one!
[Read the article: What's behind the women's blog boom?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's just about money.
-
Awesome
[Read the article: Whiz-bang commercial: Awesome or awful?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]She uses it to eject the guy, so it's her place. Thus it's supposed to be a joke/innovative use for the product.
The important feature is not having to touch anything around you, I think. Many restrooms are plenty foul to convince me to avoid sitting or leaning on anything.
The product's a bit of a niche item, but as demonstrated, makes for amusing visuals.
-
It's just a trick
[Read the article: Shocker: Angela Merkel has boobs!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So she won't have to make eye-contact with any men who come up to talk to her.
-
Lost my train of thought there.
[Read the article: Act like a man (who knows what that means)!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Looks like just a guy trying start some consciousness-raising for "masculinism" or whatever you might call a "male" version of feminism.
If the past is any indication, I'd expect masculinists to Balkanize into mutally-hostile behavioral types or modes of thought.
"Crisis" is too loaded a term, in my opinion, but there is definitely a serious breakdown in traditional male roles in the US these days, and I would imagine that the changes have been difficult for a great number of men. (I only specify the US because that's what I know--I'm certain that the actual basis of the breakdown is modern industrial capitalist society.)
I think guys talking to each other about this stuff should be encouraged and supported, regardless of the aesthetic of the "conclusions" drawn by some of the thinkers. Unfair to paint all feminists as if they were Andrea Dworkin (or Valerie Solanas, heh), it would be similar to dismiss any potentially progressive "men's movement" as worthless.
-
Heavy-Handed
[Read the article: Polygamists' progeny]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Kinda have to expect this sort of thing every few years.
It's no good, though. It's unacceptable.
As with all affronts to our sense of justice, it is almost undoubtedly a case of a few leaders or ringleaders directing the actions of most of the participants.
The "families" should not be broken up on the basis of the criminal behavior of relatively few (male) authority figures running the show.
As was pointed out, bigamy is illegal in Texas, thus the "young wives" of the husbands are all victims of crimes. This doesn't make them bad mothers or criminals themselves.
I would suggest an effort to house groups of mothers and children together while arresting the husbands known to have had sex with young wives. Similar living conditions to the commune, minus the criminal members. This would also permit investigators to observe the group dynamics in an effort to figure out who to prosecute and how to proceed.
I'm staunchly opposed to the Texas cops atomizing the group. That's absurd, and likely the most destructive treatment that can be inflicted on all the potential innocents.
So far, the approach seems equivalent to bombing entire city blocks to kill handfuls of "terrorists."
To echo another point: with what we *know* so far, this case could easily set the precedent for breaking up any community with significantly different values than its neighbors. That ain't a good thing to rally behind.
-
Pigs on the Wing
[Read the article: Bush administration backs down on fraud and abuse]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You know, you read a sharp little allegory like Animal Farm and you think it's filled with such great metaphors about the past.
Get a bit older and realize that it was thinly-veiled prediction.
Pigs write a set of rules to benefit all the animals of the farm, but awhile later, the rules have terms and exemptions that no one remembers from the original. Oddly, these new rules benefit the pigs.
I want bacon.
-
@ SB4609
[Read the article: Criminals of the world, unite and take over]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Legalizing drugs would necessitate a huge investment in a treatment infrastructure.
Uh...since when? Or maybe a better question would be, what makes you think so?
We (in the US) don't maintain a "treatment infrastructure" for drug users now, whether legal or illegal.
Why start?
-
Sarah Hepola didn't watch the video
[Read the article: I now pronounce you ... seriously unhinged]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sorry, Sarah, but you have to watch the stuff before making specific claims about what it is. Calling it a rant is a bit over the top, but I know Internet posters can get a bit snarky. It is DEFINITELY neither tearful nor vicious.
I say more power to that lady, even though I don't particularly care about her divorce results. She did sign a pre-nup.
This is exactly the sort of thing YouTube is FOR. Believe it or not, YouTube really isn't intended as a way to exchange clips of other people's creative work.
-
@ Brian Stegner
[Read the article: Criminals of the world, unite and take over]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes, I too read the title as an exhortation.
I was very disappointed that I didn't find schedules and lecture dates for the Criminalist Movement's attempts to rally the public.
The way things are going in the good'ole USA, it's just a matter of time before our collective criminality is all we have in common as a people.