Your cover story, ï¿½The Outsidersï¿½ [Jan. 16] promotes empathy for our local illegal immigrants. Well done, but where to from here? The conservatives,***image1*** with little empathy, shout, ï¿½No amnesty!ï¿½ while the compassionate liberals resist any movement toward securing our national borders. This deadlock assures the very suffering depicted in your article.
Surely some compassion is better than none, and yet compassion is not the only ingredient necessary for responsible collective action. The more we feel for the plight of such immigrants, the more it compels us to protect them by halting the further flow of illegal immigrants who will share in and worsen their economic fate. We have to find common ground with more conservative-minded Americans: Generally, help illegal immigrants who are here and reasonably established to integrate into our society (ï¿½amnesty,ï¿½ if you must), AND immediately commit ourselves to securing our national borders. Draw a line in the sand and protect it, as no sovereign nation can survive such unmonitored immigration. It is flat-out unsustainable; the economic sands of disaster are already stirring under our feet, for multiple reasons that include, but go well beyond, illegal immigration.
Yes, Mexico is an economic mess, which prompts poor Mexicans to want to come here, but we need to solve OUR problems first. Anything else, motivated by compassion or otherwise, will simply perpetuate the plight of all: the illegal immigrants described in your article, legal immigrants, many of whom are just a hair better off and our own lower economic class American citizens who are also barely hanging on (and understandably resentful. How come we are so compassionate for illegal Latino immigrants but not for our own struggling citizens? Would you be surprised to see the Reporter print a parallel article that detailed the plight of lower-middle class white Americans living in southern Arizona?)
Letï¿½s translate the sentiment of compassion into thoughtful civic action. Inviting more and more people onto a strained and sinking ship may be compassionate, but it is neither functional nor rational. Are we liberals more part of the problem than we realize...?
I read the article by Sam Mullington in the SFR Jan. 16 First Person, ï¿½Shifting Focus.ï¿½
While I theoretically agree with most of what Mr. Mullington had to say, I believe parents need to be a much BIGGER participant in their childï¿½s education.
Also, I am sure that everyone in SF was impressed by the never-ending stringing of thesis words.
I trudged through the entire article. It just became a tedious chore. Not that I didnï¿½t understand it; I did.
I even had to have my husband read it. Not for its content, but for the ridiculous attempt by Mr. Mullington to win the game of Buzzword Bingo. He is now King of Buzzword Bingo! Next time Sammy, just elucidate! Cheers.
There is not much I get more excitement from these days than reading that another sophomoric feminist got her boxer-briefs all in a bunch and listening to her prattle on after misreading an article [Letters, Jan. 9, ï¿½Gender Neutralï¿½].
Ms. Sauthoff, unlike what Mary Charlotte Domandi claims, never stated ï¿½she was sadï¿½ but instead said that the fact that we cannot imagine Hillary Clinton (used here as a metaphor) sewing socks or mending pants is sad. I think the simple point was that women who embrace a patriarchal role of power, many times portray themselves as we in a society have seen those in power appear: like men (or um...traditional men.)
Refusing to acknowledge that few women feel safe taking part in any traditional feminine activities or displaying traits associated with femininity, while seeking or working in a traditional male position, does a disservice to all women.
Many women feel that this movement of radical feminism has stripped them of the right to be feminine if they choose to do so. Go fix your roof Ms. [Domandi], but you should be able to do so in a dress if you so choose.
By the way, what is womanliness? If you are defining ï¿½womanlinessï¿½ as anything a woman does, then it has no inherent meaning. If there are activities that are possibly ï¿½womanlyï¿½ and therefore have been traditionally labeled by society as feminine, doesnï¿½t that make your argument invalid? I guess I was just confused: Are you unhappy because Ms. Sauthoff proposed the idea that traditional femininity is not accepted in our society as congruent with women in roles of power, and that it is sad? Or are you just into knocking down Straw men, or to be fair, Straw women?
Please keep publishing articles about the proposed drilling in the Galisteo Basin [Cover story, Dec. 12: ï¿½Mother Frackersï¿½]. This is an issue I want to stay abreast of, and I trust SF Reporter will do the footwork and give me accurate information.
Thank you for ï¿½Mother Frackersï¿½!
You chose an unfortunate example of school readiness when you mentioned 4 year olds sitting in the little chairs and desks [Winners & Losers, Dec. 12: ï¿½Economyï¿½]. Thatï¿½s the last place preschool children in a quality preschool environment need to be seen spending much time. Children that age in quality programs do a lot of movement that centers on activities because that is the way they learn best.
INDEPENDENT LITERACY CONSULTANT
What is Whitney Buchanan so upset about [Letters, Dec. 12: ï¿½Great for Mulchï¿½]? Because a great movie isnï¿½t getting its dues (No Country For Old Men)? No. Is it because Albuquerque was portrayed as El Paso? Doesnï¿½t seem so. Is Buchanan really so bitter and resentful because some people have the opinion that Albuquerque shouldnï¿½t be proud of imitating a city of wealthy, closed-minded hicks that manage to ignore their expansive views of mass poverty and subjugation? No. Buchanan is just yet another super-sensitive person who likes to complain about what is written in the Reporter, yet still reads the damn thing, just before using it for mulch.
The Reporter welcomes original, signed letters to the editor. Letters (no more than 200 words) should refer to speciï¬?c articles in the Reporter. They may be edited for clarity and space. Please include address and phone number for veriï¬?cation purposes; these will not be published.