Causing a Commotion
I have some concerns about the cover article that was published this week (August 6), “Doula Dilemma at Mary Birch.” It’s about Sharp Mary Birch’s doula program, which I am a part of. The whole article is filled with inaccuracies that need to be addressed. It’s causing quite the commotion in the doula world.
I’m very concerned about this Best Buys article (“Hydrate Your Hair for the Summer,” July 30). As a stylist, part of my job is to sell product. I would only ever suggest products to a client that I think would benefit them and that they would actually use.
As a stylist that happens to use both Moroccanoil and Neuma, I am flabbergasted that you would ask a stylist’s advice, and then post that it’s available on Amazon. I am aware of the owners of Millicent, and I know they are against diversion. Diversion is when a product is sold to a third party to be sold again, when a product is counterfeited and then sold, or even when someone empties out a product to fill it back up with another product (so, what is in the bottle is really something cheap).
By you telling people to shop at Amazon, all of these things could happen. Please do some research about it. There are articles about a lady digging through trash, cleaning up bottles, and then selling them on eBay and Amazon. Do you really want your readers to buy these kinds of products? Moroccanoil doesn’t sell to Amazon; neither does Neuma, nor hundreds of other brands. They are salon-only, because this is part of our livelihood.
I know that poor stylist didn’t know you were going to say that you can find these products on Amazon, or else she wouldn’t have helped you. This girl could be fired, for all you know. If she was in my salon, she would be. And it would be very hard to find another job because of it.
I get that you are trying to save money. If that is the case, do an article about product lines that work but aren’t as pricey. I can give you two lines. Loma is a natural aloe-based line that is extremely cost-friendly, and the line actually works. I can also tell you salons that sell it, since mine doesn’t. There is also a professional line called Verb — and everything costs $14!
Do your research — as a writer this is your job. You just jeopardized this stylist’s job, the salon’s integrity, and your readers who shop online — their scalp and hair could be jeopardized by buying counterfeit products.
- Steffanie Conley
- North Park
I was anticipating some whimsical folly when I opened the Reader’s July 30 News of the Weird, but was quickly horrified with Chuck Shepherd’s second item, “Is This a Great Country, or What?”
Chuck implies that there must be a serious malfunction for a country not to suspend the constitutional rights of suspects just as they do for someone convicted of a violent crime. Chuck thinks suspects should be presumed guilty.
But it’s worse than that. I’m really being charitable using the term “suspects,” because suspects means there has been a crime, and that law enforcement has looked into and determined that someone is “of interest” in that crime. Chuck is actually talking about a watch list of people who they think may be capable of a crime.
So, what Chuck is saying is that anyone capable of crime should be stripped of their constitutional rights without due process until they can prove their innocence — of a crime that has not been committed.
This is the type of thing I would expect to read living under Stalin or Mao.
Re: Letters: “Getting Thinner,” August 6
I know the reason the paper’s getting thinner. A lot of people cant read it! The print is so little that, if you’re over 50, you won’t be able to read the puzzles, for instance.
Not Legal in the UK
I was breastfeeding my daughter in the early hours of the morning when I came across your article on pit bulls. By the title, I assumed it would be an article about irresponsible owners who buy (not adopt) pit bull puppies thinking they’re cute, and then get rid of them as they get bigger because they didn’t realize the responsibility that comes with owning such a large dog.
Imagine my surprise when I learned that, in fact, it was a ludicrously outdated pit bull-hate piece, akin to something found on dogsbite.org, the most biased anti-pit bull (and large dogs in general) website I have seen. In fact, the author even used this website as a scientific source, when a fair bit of research would have given him genuine facts. Although, why would he do that, when the facts wouldn’t back him up quite as well?
I could sit here, a proud “pit bull” owner (pit bulls are not legal in the UK, and the term pit bull — whilst still encompassing a type, as in the States — is a lot more specific and regards dogs which resemble American pit bull terriers, not my Staffordshire bull terrier or Rottweiler/American bulldog mix, which are therefore legal to have), breastfeeding my child and quote statistics at you, but I get the feeling statistics aren’t going to matter here.
I could tell you about the time my Staffy was attacked by a Labrador, but that won’t persuade you of anything. I could tell you about the amount of times my “bullweiler” has been attacked and growled at by Jack Russels, Chihuahuas, and various small breeds, resulting in fear aggression. I could explain dog behavior, but I won’t because the quality of
journalism in your published article is nonexistent, and why would an editor who chooses to publish such an article, have any regard for fact and journalistic research?