Letters to the Editor
RatherBRidin'
Published Letters: 166 Editor's Choice: 30
-
Let's go to war, dude!
[Read the article: Donald Rumsfeld and the not-so-volunteer military]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I heard a radio commercial yesterday that shows where the military's collective head is at, so to speak.
It was for the U.S. Navy and featured an announcer pretending to be a surfer-dude who was pumped up about working in military intelligence and still having plenty of time off to be a surfer in California. "Work hard, play hard" was the theme. Unfortunately, some guys and gals will fall for that spiel...and wind up in Iraq or Afghanistan. Didn't know there were totally awesome beaches there...
-
Noer is as much of a dinosaur...
[Read the article: Unhappily ever after]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...the Helen Gurley Browns of the world who encourage women to marry rich guys, who write books about "the rules" of power-dating and marrying for cash and prizes.
He was wrong. They are just as wrong. Both push a sexist viewpoint/agenda.
Good article, Rebecca.
-
Kids have always wanted to be cool...
[Read the article: Pre-tween couture]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When I was in school (back in the covered-wagon days), if you didn't have Levis or Wranglers, you weren't cool. Or if you had K-Mart specials for sneakers instead of Pro-Kids or Converse. So styles (and the expense of "cool" clothing) may have changed but the sentiments and peer pressure has not. (Though it may have become more intense, I can't judge, having no kids.)
However, what seems to have changed is that some parents today really are invested (and investing) in what will make their kids cool. Back then, my folks said, "Just wear them. They're just sneakers." But my peers and those of the next-younger generation of parents who heard such comments in their youth are now saying to themselves, "I won't do that to my kids!" And so they are spending through the nose to ensure their kids have every cool item they want. It's the parent-as-best-friend syndrome. And it's creepy not just because of the JonBenet factor but because it suggests a fracturization of parenting.
-
There's been a serious outbreak...
[Read the article: Harris: Did I say Christians? I meant Christians and Jews]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...of Tourette's syndrome among Republican candidates lately. Do these clowns really think that they can spew hate-laced (or, at the least, ethnically insensitive) comments and not be called to account for them?
Oh, silly me: they've had the un-Helen Thomas's of the U.S. media covering them so of course they think so. But some voters are starting to wake up and come out of their Bush/evil-doers/9-11/liberty/freedom coma and start thinking for themselves again. Maybe there is hope.
Thanks again, Salon, for keeping on top of this stuff.
-
Belief can transcend science
[Read the article: Ghost world]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's always curious (and a little amusing) to find people hellbent on disproving the existence of spirits or other people's claims of interactions and encounters. Sometimes they try so hard they remind me of the religious right who keep insisting that allowing gays to marry will harm their own, individual marriage. What's the harm in it, really?
I have had multiple, even ongoing experiences with loved ones and strangers who've left the physical plane. Every time, regardless of how close my relationship was with the person or animal during his/her life, I experience the same flash of hair standing up on my neck. The energy in the room changes. It's a bit unnerving. And I just know I'm not alone. It occurs out of the blue--I'm not consciously thinking of that person or animal. Sometimes, my pets "see" it before I do. When you've got two cats following something across a room that you can't see with your eyes...well...
Can I prove this to be an encounter with a spirit? No. Do I believe it? Yes, absolutely. Too much has happened that I cannot explain. Perhaps science is catching up to the spirit world. In the meantime, I'll still believe.
-
The landscape of my life...
[Read the article: An imprint of their own]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...is probably similar in a lot of ways to Archer & Co.'s...except my kids have fur and my spouse is another woman. (Insert your favorite crazy cat lady joke here ). I work outside the home, knit in my leisure time, am a long-time cancer survivor, have a crazy schedule a lot of days.
But I want to run screaming from any group that thinks it will capture the "landscape" of my life--and one that assumes I want to limit my precious book-buying $ to reading just that. I'm not reading only about gay/lesbian issues, nor am I reading only about cat issues or cancer-related topics.
On my current reading list: Alastair Cooke's book about America during 1941-42, massage therapy texts, "Shadow Divers", "The Egyptologist" and assorted ghost stories.
If they've done their marketing homework and feel they can read everyday American women within that age group, god[dess]speed. But I won't be surprised if it folds in a year or so--or publishes very niche-y tomes.
-
But Lynn, with all due respect,
[Read the article: CBS puts Couric on Photoshop diet]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]my reaction to the whole Couric-slim-down story is a big "So what?" Why are we surprised by the shallowness of any major television "news" organization these days? It would be news if they hired a real journalist to anchor the news. Katie Couric's not fit that bill for ages, if she ever did. And why are we surprised by Barbara Walters' comments? She's in the same boat as Katie.
Is it sad that we aren't surprised? Perhaps. But I've long since stopped having high expectations for TV news coverage, let alone the people the networks put in front of the teleprompter.
While news outlets tackle this non-story, folks in New Orleans are still homeless a year later. NPR or Marketplace Radio had a Robert Riech piece this morning about how the new New Orleans is minus a good percentage of its poor, who haven't had the money to a) rebuild or b) return. To me, that is truly disturbing, not whether CBS has played with the photographed image of a multimillionaire news reader.