Skip to main content

My response to a Charlotte Observer letter-to-the-editor

I've often been critical of the letters-to-the-editor published in the local Columbus Dispatch paper, but know my local paper is far from alone in the practice of publishing such awful letters. Just this morning, I read the following letter-to-the-editor, published by the Charlotte Observer with regard to Carolina Panthers' starting quarterback, Cam Newton, entitled, "Cam should marry his son's mother":

"In response to 'The Chosen One: baby will change Cam's life (Jan. 1):

So the man whom we celebrate, and with good reason, has produced a son. Congratulations would be in order if he had been man enough to marry the mother of his child and make a home. This happy occasion is blighted when Cam, whose own parents were married, skips the very basis of being a good parent.

I am just very sorry and very disappointed.

Patricia S. Broderick, Mooresville"

Granted, judging by her picture, the author of this piece appears to be between the ages 92 and 143, but still... This woman may be from a different era, but marriage is not a prerequisite to being a good mother, father, or having a happy, healthy family. It's becoming increasingly more commonplace for couples to hold off marriage or not get married at all, not to mention having a child out of wedlock, than had been the case in years past. It's also becoming more commonplace for unmarried couples to live together prior to getting married, so I'm not sure why in the world Ms. Broderick felt the need to italicize the term "home," insinuating the well-paid NFL star quarterback isn't providing a home for his long-time girlfriend and child. Segueing from that, this child wasn't the result of a one-night stand, a drunken night out, a wild frat party, or a fling; he was the result of a long-term couple which hasn't officially tied the knot yet. When some athletes have been convicted of rape, murder, domestic violence, etc., this woman really has the gall to complain about an athlete having a child with a long-time girlfriend? Seriously? Perhaps this woman's revised New Year's resolution should be, "I'll stop judging people like it's 1916." That'd be nice, for last I checked, it's 2016...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cam-newton-baby-observer-letter_568acda9e4b0b958f65c650f
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun
2 comments
Read more

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i
Post a Comment
Read more

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"
Post a Comment
Read more