Letters to the Editor
I was quite confused by Mr. Heller’s cartoon in the Alameda Sun on June 3. It seems to contradict itself in terms of reaching its targets, The illustration is, at first study, paradoxically condescending to believers in science and religion alike. Who is this supposed to offend, enlighten, or entertain? What was the goal here?
I am by no means supporting or discounting creationism or alternate theories, but, technically, it’s still a theory, and the teacher seems to be dictating this as the only explanation for the virus as an analogue to Darwin’s work.
Given the bizarre revelations in Dr. Fauci’s own emails — revealed, coincidentally, on the day of this cartoon’s publication — it no longer seems it to be a “theory” that the virus came from or was potentially manipulated by a lab.
Alternate captions should have been considered. Perhaps the pupil could have said, “My dad says to read the Fauci emails,” or, perhaps “My dad says to read the testimonies of the Wuhan lab whistleblowers,”
Perhaps I am overthinking this but I suspect it was written to mock those who question the official narrative. I’m just offended that the joke doesn’t land.
In my high school years I learned that men’s legs are set in straight and women’s legs are set in crooked.
This gives men the advantage for strength and stability. High-rise construction workers and roofers are men because their footing is more secure.
Women, in turn, are prepared to carry and nurture babies until they are born. Weight is no problem because babies are weightless until birth. Any weight gain would be the mothers.
The real challenge is space to make room for baby women’s legs, which are set in crooked. In ancient Greece women made a study to the weightlessness technique.
The famous “Nymphs Dancing in the Forest” was a famous exercise with flowing movements focusing in a small way on weightlessness. Men, in turn, showed amazing strength and stability.
in regard to scholarships, women need to compete against their own kind. New World superwomen should compete with other superwomen, otherwise with men who also have their legs set in straight.
Reading the Letters to the Editor section of the June 10 Alameda Sun, I am thrown into a tailspin. A succinct well-crafted letter by Bob Barde (“Amateur and racist”) describes the editing of “Claim Filed” as “Very amateurish, if not racist.”
An adjacent letter, by Stanley Voogd (“Upset by inaccurate, misleading statements”) argues that “the officers did everything possible” and that publisher Dennis Evanosky may be jumping on a bandwagon to “blame the police.”
If the accusations contained in the two letters could be labeled as a media bias, the Bob Barde letter would categorize Evanosky’s bias as racist and conservative. The letter from Stanley Voogd places Evanosky’s bias on the liberal Freemanpolice bashing wing of the political spectrum.
In a polarized society in which there is no room for middle ground, ovine, invertebrate readers such as myself, who do not want to risk opprobrium, want, indeed need, to be told what to think and whom to judge.
The contradictory letters have crashed my hard drive. I am sitting on the fence, and it is not comfortable. Would someone tell me what I should be thinking? Toss me a bone here, SVP.