Regarding “Grumpy girlfriend grief,” Aug. 20:
We found the column disturbing in its gender bias. The author made it sound as if only women are crabby, demanding, reactive and insecure. Not only is this a sexist article that perpetrates the gender stereotype of the out-of-control, hormonally driven woman, but the author missed an opportunity to educate the public about the difference between respectful relationships and partner abuse.
If the gender was changed from girlfriend to boyfriend, the author may have noticed that she was describing an abusive relationship. An out-of-control man who would go ballistic over his girlfriend not answering the phone would be seen as controlling and frightening.
A man who berates his girlfriend, who melts down every time she speaks to another man or who blames her for when he acts out in anger would be seen by most people as an abusive man. Even the article’s graphic depicts a woman physically battering a man!
All people deserve to be treated with respect.
If the article substituted “partner” for girlfriend or woman, the public might have been educated on the difference between partner abuse and respectful relationships.
Kristy McCray, Vicki Pobor, Shannon Rangel, Shirley Wu and Jeannette Page
AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act, is based on the following assumptions:
The Earth has been warming and the warming is caused by human activities like the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The warming will continue and the warming will be significant enough to justify more expensive energy.
But not every scientist agrees that if the Earth’s climate is warming, it is caused by human activity.
Let us assume that the above assumptions are true. Is AB 32 justified? No, because implementing AB 32 will undoubtedly cause energy to become more expensive in California. Businesses, especially those that are energy-intensive, will face higher costs in the production of their products. Many will migrate to other states or countries where energy is cheaper.
For the same reason, fewer businesses will move to California. The result? These products will continue to be produced and release carbon dioxide, but not in California. California will have a weaker economy without any significant reduction of carbon dioxide.
China and India say they have no intention of using less fossil fuel. California acting alone will have a minimal impact on global warming at great cost to the residents of the state.
William H. McKenzie
There was an important misstatement in a recent letter to the editor (“Could be offended,” Aug. 20).
President Barack Obama did not “announce his approval of a mosque at ground zero.” The president of the United States explained that the builders, under state and federal law, including the United States Constitution, had the right to build there if they followed the law.
That’s not approval, that’s a statement of fact. He has not, at any time, “approved” of that project.