Original Article: http://dartreview.com/archives/2006/02/10/letters_to_the_editor.php
Friday, February 10, 2006
Helpful Hipster Guide
Sir—
Thanks for the hipster blacklist! I just moved here, but I hate hipsters, now I know who to be careful of—very informative!
Philip Alford
Collis Strikes Back
Sir—
Regarding your “hipster” blacklist: You are an embarrassment.
Evidence? “Everyone in Collis.”
Sydney Kim ’06
What Goes Around Comes Around
Sir—’
Dartmouth students who require examples of excellent writing would be well advised to read your Editorial on page 3 of your issue of 20 January, 2006. As to Sabinson versus the Dartmouth administration, one hardly knows which party to cheer for.
A dispassionate observer might be moved to thoughts of, “chickens coming home to roost.” However, one who has followed this situation from the time of the disgusting Cole incident might think to himself, “What goes around comes around.” For some reason, neither local nor regional media have seen fit to discuss this little contretemps. Your coverage of this subject is very welcome.
Sincerely,
Art Needhman ’60
How Romantic
Sir—
Congratulations on your superb article in the January 9, 2006 edition of The Dartmouth Review on Professor Jacobs’s book about C.S. Lewis. The article is masterfully written; it captures the reader’s interest and intention from the opening paragraph.
I brought your article to the attention of my wife, Kathy (Colorado State ‘72), who has been studying Lewis for decades, has read all of his books and, I would modestly assert, is an expert about his life and works. Your article whetted her appetite to learn even more about Lewis. Therefore, at her request (and in anticipation of our 25th wedding anniversary on February 14), I ordered her a copy.
Your article is itself a captivating work of scholarship. Your article is yet further proof that those who deride and attack The Dartmouth Review do so without picking up the newspaper and reading its contents.
John D. Sharer ’72
Richmond, VA
Sick of Sic
Sir—
I just read Kevin Hudak’s piece on the drama professor who is suing Dartmouth.
I like The Dartmouth Review for the most part, but your habit of trying to make people look foolish by relentlessly tagging even minor orthographical errors with “(sic)” is not only smarmy and juvenile, it’s annoying and distracting. Why not do what most other publications do, and reserve the use of “(sic)” for things like really odd word choice or factual errors? Is making people look like fools in print with a three letter Latin adverb so tempting?
I brought this same matter up with a friend of mine who wrote for the Review , and he pretty much told me that it was a way to make someone with an opposing viewpoint look stupid without actually responding to what they’re saying. More than ten years later, your paper is still at it.
Brian Crawford ’96
Book Review Plaudits
Sir—
I applaud your extensive use of book reviews in the January 9, 2006, Dartmouth Review as they add weight to your conservative arguments against the pervasive liberal political agenda you find being foisted upon Dartmouth students by their professors. The books you have reviewed, and the reviews themselves, perhaps, may provide undergraduates there with the means to protest against teachers who try to indoctrinate students rather than educate them, and “by opposing, end them.”
We older alumni live in hope.
Wilson C. Boynton ’51
Retired Professor of English
Against The Covenant
Sir—
Infant circumcision (male foreskin amputation) is declining nationwide. NO national medical group worldwide recommends this harmful surgery. Nevertheless, few people (physicians included) understand the protective, sensory, and sexual functions of the foreskin, or the resulting losses from circumcision. The 85% of males worldwide who are left intact are the fortunate ones.
The foreskin covers and protects the glans penis, keeping its surface moist. Glands in the foreskin produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins, and the foreskin’s mucosal lining secretes immunoglobulins that defend against infection. After foreskin removal, the glans becomes thickened, dry, and less sensitive. Later in life, erectile dysfunction may result.
Male circumcision results in the loss of 10,000 to 20,000 erogenous nerve endings, including receptors called Meissner’s corpuscles; the nerve-dense frenulum; the frenar band of soft ridges; the dartos fascia; over 50% of the mobile penile skin; the sliding and gliding mechanism that allows for nonabrasive, lubricating, normal sexual intercourse for both the male and female, and much more. (See Cold and Taylor, “British Journal of Urology,” January 1999 and Lostlist at www.cirp.org.)
Fortunately for children, more parents today are saying NO to circumcision and respecting the bodily integrity rights of their sons.
Petrina Fadel
Groton, NY