Among a growing chorus in the in-tray: Amen to the reader whose comment you posted saying you should make it 20 bucks, not $19.99. I had already sent in my $20 contribution when I read the comment. Being a quantitatively literate person, I hate that .99 stuff. It's a way to try to fool people, and that … Continue reading Dissent Of The Day
A reader writes: I thoroughly agree with your blog post about Obama's collapse, though I would go a couple of steps further: Peter Baker's story in the Times yesterday offers a sense of Obama's loyal subordinates scrambling before the debate to get him engaged in prep, and then after the debate doing damage control. He … Continue reading Non-Dissent Of The Day
Many more readers are dissenting:
Andrew, your reader is right that "your passion is getting the better of you" about MGM, and your response to her proves it. In one breath you admit that MGM only "merely slightly dulls" pleasure, yet in the next you grab your pitchfork and torch so you can shout down dissent, saying "So, sorry. But you did that. You have scarred his
penis for life. You made that decision on behalf of your infant son."
Yes, the reader made a decision on behalf of her son. Guess what? That’s what parents do, all the time and every day.
Are all these choices wise or correct? Of course not! But we do the best we have with the information that we have. What is the point of accusing good-intentioned parents of "mutilating" their infant boys with a procedure that you yourself admit can still be part of a healthy, pleasurable sex life? Can your reader, and others like her, explain this to her son someday, and make sure that if he has children he is aware of the choices? Absolutely. But can you stop shouting at your readers about something that’s already done – and almost always innocently and/or with good intentions – and focus instead on changing the conversation going forward?
Point taken. But this is not part of usual parenting; it is not teaching a kid how to read or play a game; it's a physical surgical irrevocable operation on the most intimate part of a human being's body. It occurs almost immediately after birth. Would anyone ever think of doing such a thing if it were not related to ancient religious tradition? No. Would we permanently change any other part of an infant's body to ward off nebulous future STDs? No. Those are my points. As for my tone, maybe mutilation does come off as harsh. The online thesaurus proposes the following synonyms: "baptism, initiation rite, initiatory rite." But those are religious definitions, obviously. "Mutilation" has all negative connotations, but captures the permanent loss, or damage and scar tissue. Perhaps the most neutral term that is not cowardly is "male genital cutting", or maybe "forcible foreskin removal."
I am not doubting the good faith of those who choose to permanently alter their infant sons' bodies out of future health concerns.
A reader responds to the latest round over MGM:
When my son was born 11 years ago I left the final decision about circumcision to my husband. As a woman I did not feel that I had a right to make that decision because I don't know what it means to have or not have a foreskin. My husband opted for circumcision. His arguments – that any reasonable step that can slow the transmission of diseases like HIV is the responsible choice to make (his brother died of AIDS), that he did not want his son to feel different or strange (my husband, like most men of my generation, was circumcised), that he has never missed his own foreskin, and finally that hygiene is an issue – seemed reasonable to me.
We talked to my doctor, a very progressive, highly esteemed OB/GYN and extremely competent surgeon, at length. She assured us the procedure was safe and quick and that the pain would be very brief. My husband and I were permitted to watch. Obviously the baby experienced some pain, but it was indeed very brief. He showed more distress at his own birth, frankly, not to mention during the procedures that were required to save his life when he suffered heart failure at a later time. I had not given this issue any thought since then. Not until you took it up. And I have to tell you the overheated rhetoric is taking a toll on me. Now I feel like some sort of monster: I mutilated my son.
A reader writes: If I could vote in the US presidential election (I'm Canadian), I'd totally be in the bag for Obama, but I've got to say, all this faux outrage over the Romney tape reminds me of the faux outrage over Obama's "guns and religion" tape from last cycle. To make the leap from … Continue reading Dissent Of The Day
by Chris Bodenner
A reader writes:
I am appalled with your choice for Face of the Day. I realize that the words you used to accompany the picture were not designed to whip up anti-Sikhism in the same way the picture was, but the picture, with its violent, retributive elements, is stronger than the text.
Last night, I watched CNN as Don Lemon interviewed the president of an American Sikh organization. I also saw an interview with the nephew of the Wisconsin's temple's president. The nephew's uncle was seriously injured and the nephew had spoken directly with eyewitnesses. Both men impressed me with their kindness, their calmness, and their clear commitment to retaining the values of their religion as they spoke. They also were clearly not anti-American. They reminded me most of those Amish who were magnanimous after a madman killed many of their children.
Are Sikhs saints? No more than members of any other religion. I am aware that Sikh extremists murdered Indira Gandhi and almost certainly were responsible for bringing down Air India Flight 182, out of Vancouver. But on the day after American Sikhs were murdered for no good reason, and quite possibly because someone saw them in exactly the threatening terms that you chose to accentuate by using that image, why focus on that image?
A reader is set off by our Samsara post:
Look, I know you haven't been amused enough by my previous emails re: the seriousness of marijuana abuse to post up my comments, but I've been getting almost daily reminders from your blog that get me more and more pissed about this issue. Your choice of blog entries about pot and your inability to preface any of your arguments for legalization with a reminder that marijuana is NOT a harmless drug has honestly surprised me. The issue and topic of legalization might be a good fit for your blog, but your uncompromising, fanatical celebration of this drug is a bit awkward. What's with your obsession over pot?
Marijuana is NOT a harmless drug. And the fact that many writers, bloggers, and columnists such as yourself have been talking about it in such casual, one-sided terms (perhaps in spite of the federal government's unnecessary and stupid enforcement of it) is downright destructive.
A reader writes: I am a wimp and Romney tries to have everything both ways, and he should have proudly owned the full spectrum of Bain's investments at any given time, including '99-02. But still, the Obama attack path makes me queasy, for two reasons 1) there's nothing really wrong with offshoring (though there is … Continue reading Dissent Of The Day
A reader writes: How many times have you gotten something wrong on your blog, then defended yourself by saying that everybody makes mistakes but you're doing the best you can while essentially reacting live in front of an audience? There's a whole lot of real, substantive news today, and none of it involves CNN getting … Continue reading Dissent Of The Day
A reader quotes me:
"But if your enemy brings an AK-47 to the fight, what's a man gonna do?" This is probably the most loathesome sentence you've ever written, at least that I've seen. So it's manly to generate propaganda about your political opponent? Oh, I'm sorry, you weren't even kind enough to write "political opponent" – they're the "enemy." And they're bringing an AK-47? It's good to know you've dumped advocating for more honest political discourse and have adopted the big swinging dick mentality of the Republican party. Goodbye to all that, indeed.
You will not find propaganda here. Opinion yes; but propaganda no. My point was about how to respond to an opponent willing to lie so brazenly, and spread those lies with a massive financial arsenal. I don't think you should lie. But I do think you can scare, using tactics the GOP and the Dems have honed for years. You think Bill Clinton got re-elected without scaring the elderly shitless about Medicare? I'm just asking for the same steely political skill. Another reader has it right:
