Thursday, February 16, 2006
NAME-CALLER IS PARANOID
Jeffrey Van Middlebrook’s letter [Letters, Feb. 9-15] is regrettably typical of those who attempt to shout down the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding global warming. The “pseudo-science,” and “so-called evidence of this errant claim” is supported by The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the World Metereological Organization, and of course NASA.
Mr. Van Middlebrook apparently sees a “veiled agenda” for the Weekly, and both a “corruption of science” and “ulterior motives” on the part of the above organizations. Such accusations do little to support his case. Indeed they suggest a degree of paranoia.
Opponents of global warming suggest their theories are “irrefutable facts,” while those supporting global warming are portrayed as the products of hidden agendas, and wooly thinking, or worse, related to eco-terrorism.
It saddens me that Mr. Van Middlebrook and his ilk are unable to argue their case without resorting to such rhetoric. Unfortunately it is a sign of the times, and the result of the unprecedented polarization of opinion which has occured in recent years. —Timothy Darby | Monterey
SMART GUY CAN’T SPELL
Wow, am I embare-assed! Normully I’m a stellor speler, rairly making any grahmatical errers, but I am known to be a terruble prufe-reeder. Evidunce? My most recent missif in yore paper.
Your edutorial staph found the following mispelings in my alledged “pairinoyd” diotrybe about globull warming: “vein” instead of “vain”; “ulterio” instead of “ulterior”; “occuring” instead of “occurring”; “natutral” instead of “natural”; and “psuedo” instead of “pseudo”. Wut can I say? This wuz a compleetly sic (sick) letter!
Yew know that when I wrote my best-selling books—yes, I yam a publushed auther—the editur assined to criteek my manewscripps had to kick back my corected submishons over and over becuz I crank out my thoaghts at litening speed, presooming that I never make any misstaiks in speling, punkuashon, sintacks, and grammor. My hooge ego was oaffendid, but when won is trying to get publushed beggors can’t be chuzers, write?
My most sinseer opologees. —Jeffrey Van Middlebrook | Pacific Grove
SMART GALS STRIP, TOO
I find it saddening that Amy Pierovich felt so comfortable relegating stripping to deplorable ranks, as evidenced in her description of it as “soul-sucking” [Letters, Feb. 2-6]. I would hope people would take the time to sufficiently research a subject before condemning it; indeed, nothing real in life is black and white. She needs to strip herself of those trite stereotypes.
Stripping involves the selling of an image, not of the female body itself—a prevalent game in any profession. Honestly, does it matter how you dress when you go to work? Does it matter if others think you’re good-looking? Does it matter if your hair is cut and styled?
We place more emphasis on succeeding with our brains—as if ignoring the inevitable role of the physical self makes it any less potent. Does the mind really matter more than the body?
I find her assumption that a sex worker would not feel whole and worthy quite offensive. Her stigmatism comes out in spades with her myopic assumption that strippers must be seeking completion through outside sources, more so than any other profession.
Because yeah, I think every day that I don’t feel whole and worthy I should take off my clothes and that will solve the problem. (Note sarcasm.)
A lot of women strip in their bedrooms, go commando, wear cleavage-baring shirts and rising hemlines. The currency isn’t something you can take to the bank. It’s for love, self-esteem, making someone else happy to make yourself happy, being too tired to argue, etc. At least stripping puts it out on the table.
The fact of the matter is, these women usually learn to be more comfortable than most in their skin and prove financially self-sufficient in the process—enough to invest, buy homes, and finish very expensive private college educations. Beat that. —Neela Coleman | Seaside
TRIBUTE TO OCTOPUSSY, PT. II
Time for a trip to the Monterey Aquarium for Squid’s artist friend, who is unable to distinguish a squid from an octopus! Glad to see artwork, but get it right. —Nancy Iverson | Salinas