Columns & Blogs » Letters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor: Feb. 1, 2012


Last Week's Cover Story Was Written by Nicolas Grizzle

Yes, you may have noticed it too: last week's excellent cover story on the fallout and future of SOPA and PIPA was printed—most embarrassingly—without a byline. The automated bots of InDesign saw fit, at the last moments before press, to chew up the wonderful name of Nicolas Grizzle and spit it out into the netherworld of nothingness, leaving its owner unable to take proud credit for a job well done. Alas.

To remedy this most unfortunate oversight, we extended to Nicolas Grizzle the invitation to supply us with a photo of his choosing—any photo at all—and the promise that we would run it in this week's paper.

He has given us a picture of himself in formal garb next to a vintage Victorian chair, upon which sits a small dog.


Vowing to Double-Check All Proofs

Quixotic Moment?

Thank you so much for the excellent article on Move to Amend ("Taking the Power Back," Jan. 18). I have two corrections/comments to offer regarding professor David McCuan's response:

1. One does not have to go through Congress in order to amend the constitution. Two-thirds of the states can propose an amendment, instead of two-thirds of each branch of Congress.

2. He calls this a "quixotic moment" in the body politic and predicted a "cold day in hell before there's a constitutional amendment." The Arab Spring happened on a colder day than a constitutional amendment. It is the way of academics to say that things that have not happened will not happen, and it is the task of activist citizens to make them happen anyway.

North Bay Move to Amend

Editor's Note: Statements about the amendment process in the article did omit the option of an Article V Convention applied for by the states, and the article has been properly updated. However, those statements did not come from nor were they attributed to David McCuan. The Bohemian regrets the misunderstanding.

In Names We Trust

I empathize with Ms. Burton's thoughts on keeping the family name after marriage ("The Feminist Wife," Jan. 18). I did when I married 16 years ago. My reasons included wanting to feel connection with family heritage; keeping a sense of personal identity; and, most important, giving a gift of continuity to my parents after the untimely death of my older brother and only sibling when I was 10. Being a single child for most of my life has heightened my awareness of the ephemeral nature of our names. I wasn't ready for my father's name to disappear just yet. I wanted to extend it into the future just a little longer.

My urgency was further compounded by the fact that my partner and I chose not to reproduce. But if we had decided to parent, my husband had already made clear his belief that the mother gets first dibs on bestowing her family name, if that's what she wants.

Though keeping one's family name is sometimes inconvenient—duplicate mailings to the same address; being addressed as your husband's "missus"; having to clarify you're a couple at times—these I consider minor annoyances. After so many years, most family and friends have gotten my name right. That my husband has always introduced me as "this is my wife, Janet Barocco" has helped a lot.

Santa Rosa

Write to us at

Add a comment