Posted: Monday, November 17, 2008 12:00 am
Obvious truths about Obama ease racial divide
It seems it took a comic strip writer (Gary Trudeau in Doonesbury) to state the obvious about our president-elect: "He's half white, you know."
I hope this election has hastened the process of shedding the perceived radical divides in our country.
The sooner we realize we are well on the way to being a multi-ethnic society, even in Oregon, the better off we'll be.
Angela Carson, Corvallis
Yes, we do need a Mom-in-Chief in the White House
The recent commentary "Do we really need a Mom-in-Chief" was disappointing. The writer's main point is made at the very end of her column - "-. one difficulty that we working moms face is that society still thinks that stay-at-home-moms fully focused on their kids are the ideal." The writer uses the experience of Michelle Obama to make this point, and I find that argument a bit lacking.
Firstly, I believe that part of the women's rights movement was to give women the freedom to do as they please, if that happens to be staying at home to take care of the kids then so be it. Secondly, Michelle Obama has a very successful career and is hardly giving up any promise of a career by staying home with the kids for six months to a year while they settle in to the White House. Thirdly, I have to believe that the situation that the Obamas are moving into is hardly one that could be called "common."
Now the question of the "Mommy-Wars," Stay-at-Home vs. working mom is a question for each to answer based on situation. For some there is the luxury and the desire to stay at home and take care of the children, for others they must or want to work, full- or part-time, hiring a nanny or having a stay-at-home dad is yet another option. In the end I don't think that working moms should complain about Michelle Obama opting to be a stay-at-home mom for a while, if that's what she sees as right for her family.
Erica Koenig, Corvallis
Investing in the stock market worth the risks
I have read the recent letters regarding Social Security with interest.
Unfortunately only John Brenan's Nov. 4 letter, "Putting Social Security into stock still a good idea," has any data to support his position that he would have done better in the stock market than in SSI.
The others, who claim the opposite, are unsupported opinions. Maybe it's my scientific training, but I find arguments supported by data to be more compelling than those that do not.
I happen to agree with Mr. Brenan. If I had been able to put some of my SSI money in the market, I too would be better off today. Is that because I am smart about picking stocks? Most definitely not; it's because the stock market has averaged a 7 percent return.
There have been a lot of ups and downs, like the one we are in now, but there have been a lot more ups than downs.
The dumbest thing I ever did with my money was to get out of market after the crash in 1987. I put my money in an annuity. What could be safer, right? Wrong. The life insurance company I picked went out of business, and I settled three years later for 50 cents on the dollar. Meanwhile, the market regained its losses, and then some.
Am I going to get out of the market now? No way. It will be back up in a few years. And with President-elect Barack Obama's well-known expertise in economics, it could be sooner.
Jay Burreson, Corvallis