Letters to the Editor
Kryptik
Published Letters: 39
-
The problem with balance...
[Read the article: The religion of balance and centrism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...is that it's a forcable tilting of the scale of credibility. No matter how much one side might be focused on the facts, both sides represented are given the same amount of credibility. And that benefits only the side that doesn't have the facts. Whereas objectivity presents both sides arguments, they lays out the facts, "balance" presents both sides, then ends it there and lets you choose, without actually INFORMING you of the facts on the issue. It leaves you with the assumption that both sides are equally credible, and it's just a matter of opinion.
And I think it's a great point that someone brought up that they tar liberal writers with accusations that they're "Just like Limbaugh or Coulter". But when it comes to covering Coulter, they're totally adulatory. So...they're just as bad as the people they gush over. So...why are the people that are being compared to Limbaugh, Coulter, etc., the ones that these reviewers seem to just adore, the bad ones for being just like them?
-
Real Men Fight Fights...Fake Men Just Start Them
[Read the article: War cheerleaders ask: "Is Obama man enough to be president?"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That's been the reality of this administration. They start the fights that real men have to finish for them. Soldiers pay for the hubris of our leaders so they can act like "real men" when all they're doing is posturing by having people fight in their stead, never once thinking of the cost in real human lives. Just dollar signs and political bludgeoning sticks.
-
"Nothing To Hide" - The Biggest Privacy Misconception
[Read the article: The religion of balance and centrism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not doing anything wrong so I have nothing to worry about.
Again, why should I care?
And I guess you missed the part where I pointed out that to get or keep a decent cup I have to submit to a (what is to me at least) a humiliating procedure.
Nothing to worry about? Nothing to hide?
The NSA and the Executive Branch will decide that, citizen.
I'm serious. The thing about this is that it can be abused in so many ways, what you might consider innocuous, the government might try and connect into something insidious and find some way to justify further watch on you or even go so far as to go after you, just because you might have bought a certain book, or went to a certain kind of rally, or talked to someone who talked to someone who talked to someone who MIGHT have funded someone who funded someone that COULD be a terrorist.
-
The Difference Between Wright and White Evangelicals is this...
[Read the article: The difference between Jeremiah Wright and radical, white evangelical ministers]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Wright is black.
White Evangelicals are White.
End point
.........
Ok, while that's really simplifying it too much, it's an important thing to note. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan. What do all four of them have in common? They're all four outspoken Black religious figures, and all four of them receive almost universal condemnation politically. Despite the differences they might have in actual ideology or theology, that one thread ties them together.
Now what do most radical white evangelicals have in common? They're white, and they almost always fly under the radar and are given the utmost of respect for the most part, unless they say something really outrageous. Then they're scolded for...maybe 2 weeks before they regain their credibility. Falwell, Robertson, Donahue, Hagee, Perkins, etc. They all have said outrageous things about America, but, as Chris Rock said, "It's all right, 'cuz it's all white!"
It's hardly the whole story, but it's a big part that for some reason, white Political Christians (I refuse to believe they're genuine Christians, for their actual ignorance of Christ's own teachings) are given the utmost respect, while black religious figures for the most part are either shills, hypocrites, frauds, or racebaiters, regardless of the merits of what they might have to say.
Tie that together with 'Scary Black possibly Muslim Democratic America Hater vs. Safe, White, War-Supporting War Hero with Respectable Religious Friends', and you get the narrative we have now.
Now, I'd go into the white, sane Christians that speak up politically....except as far as the media goes, they don't exist. (snark) After all, only REPUBLICANS are religious and moral. (/snark)
-
To IOWA DEMOCRAT
[Read the article: The difference between Jeremiah Wright and radical, white evangelical ministers]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am very confused. I thought Obama was Muslim. When did he become christian? How can a muslim have a pastor. I thought they have Imans?
Since they found a way to use it as a political bludgeon.
Truth doesn't matter, as long as you can batter your opponent with easily palatable lies.
-
to Stuart_Zechman
[Read the article: The difference between Jeremiah Wright and radical, white evangelical ministers]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Nice to see you hear from Swampland.
To address your point: part of why some people roll their eyes at the outrage of such a thing is because, while HIV and AIDS' origin is indeed tracable, there is historical precedent for using human guinea pigs like that.
It's called the 'Tuskeegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male'.
Considering that happened under the watch of the United States Public Health Service, it's little wonder there's that level of mistrust in the government. Now is the insistence that AIDS is the same sort of thing false? Yes. But this assertion is a symptom, not the illness. It's a symptom of the mistrust from the African American community toward the government, that at least has some concrete foundations.
-
to grekvvv
[Read the article: The difference between Jeremiah Wright and radical, white evangelical ministers]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That's why I label people like that 'Political Christians'. Because they're only Christians politically. Most fundamentalists who represent the religion in political arenas have long since shucked the actual teachings of Christ and the New Testament. Their God is not the loving one, but the vengeful one of fire and brimstone, and they're constantly looking for another Sodom and Gamorrah to lay to waste in His name.
I'd subscribe that there are precious few genuine Christians duly represented in the Political Elite.