Back Talk | Letters to the Editor | Indy Week

Columns » Letters to the Editor

Back Talk

Letters to the Editor

Car talk
In response to Derek Jennings' "Party of Eight" (Dec. 1):

Don't cry, Derek. You don't have to get a behemoth SUV for your large family! The Green Car Journal recommends the minivan for spacious, "family-friendly functionality." There's even a guide to the Top Green Minivans, including (in this order) the Toyota Sienna, Dodge Caravan and Nissan Quest. Many families were larger in the days before SUVs and somehow managed to get around. PLEASE, set an example for the rest of gas-guzzling America and Go Green! For more info, go to
Tracey Oliveto

Good writing, great example
I am writing to loudly applaud Mr. Derek Jennings. "Party of Eight" (Dec. 1) is a capturing piece, and as I of course enjoyed Mr. Jennings writing, I am applauding Mr. and Mrs. Jennings' wonderful and I am sure rewarding efforts in building and sustaining their family of six children.

In this age where families are falling apart from within, or being torn apart from outside forces, I admire and salute the Jennings' beautiful example of a family coming together.

When it comes my time, I too hope to adopt a child and bring them into my family.
Yashna Maya Padamsee

Parents needed
I want to thank Derek Jennings for his wonderful portrait of life with foster children, and how he and his wife have come to the decision to adopt three. North Carolina has hundreds of foster children who need to be adopted. For people who are not ready to adopt, the need for foster parents is always high. 1-877-NC-KIDS-1 is a resource for people who are curious about adoption or foster care, or go to
Lois Nilsen
Public Affairs
N.C. Dept. of Health and Human Services

Simply sexist
Thanks to Fiona Morgan for her article about Ipas and WUNC ("WUNC's semantic headache," Dec. 1). The term "rights" would probably be acceptable to WUNC if it weren't modified by "reproductive." After all, WUNC runs an announcement for People of Faith Against the Death Penalty. Doesn't the name of that organization imply advocacy? Perhaps WUNC will next ban the words "for" or "against."

In the current political climate, the problem with "reproductive rights" is that the term refers to women. The action on the part of WUNC is simply sexist, implying that women do not deserve control over their bodies and lives.

Or at least they do not deserve to have the word "rights" applied to them in a short slot several times a week on WUNC, even if the organization sponsoring that slot is paying close to $1,700 a month. That may sound like a lot of money, but it's probably not much compared to what corporate sponsors pay, some of whom may have a problem with "reproductive rights."

The former counsel for WUNC says there is no legal basis for striking the term. But this isn't about legality. It's about ideology. And WUNC has chosen where and with whom it stands. People who care about women's rights should take this into account and act accordingly the next time WUNC appeals for donations.
Sherryl Kleinman
Chapel Hill

talk back.
Got something to say about an Independent article? Send no more than 300 words to; to P.O. Box 2690, Durham 27715; or fax 286-4274. Include your name, phone number and mailing address for verification; we cannot publish a letter without confirmation from the writer. We reserve the right to edit letters for length, style and clarity.

Add a comment