Letters to the Editor
Silenced
Published Letters: 1358 Editor's Choice: 75
-
I just read the Wikipedia article on hydrogen sulfide
[Read the article: My office mate lets off noxious farts]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Here's what it says:
Hydrogen sulfide has been implicated in some of the five mass extinctions that have occurred in the Earth's past. Although asteroid impacts are thought to have caused some extinctions, the Permian mass extinction (sometimes known as the "Great Dying") may have been caused by hydrogen sulfide.
The gas in this case came from volcanoes, but you get the idea.
It says elsewhere in the article that inhaling it can cause pulmonary edema.
It's not a sign of being whiny weakling to complain about a gas that once caused a mass extinction.
-
You think I'm actually going to vote on this basis?
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's softer side]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Her softer side? What's so soft about supporting mandatory minimum sentencing?
I refuse to vote for anyone who supports mandatory minimum sentencing and there's no way such a person can ever impress me with any kind of fake, put on "soft side."
In California our prison budget is growing while state revenue is shrinking. So all the kinds of social programs that appeal to the "softer side" of humanity are going to have to be SLAUGHTERED mercilessly to pay for the food, clothing, housing and medical care of prisoners.
It's pretty hard to take, but that's where the great leaders of the nineties led us.
-
Okay one thing that bothers me about Obama
[Read the article: Obama's double magic]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I appreciate that he has his opposition to incarceration mania plainly described on his website.
On the other hand, he makes all of these wonderful promises regarding technology and the environment -- but where is his policy on basic scientific research?
It's the basic research that underlies and gives birth to the innovations in technology.
I like it that Hillary is very unambiguous about her support for basic scientific research.
I'm worried about the future of American science. None of these wonderful applications Obama wants to fund and promote are going to happen in America without much stronger support for basic scientific research coming from the federal government.
-
How we haven't moved beyond race, from the news
[Read the article: Obama's double magic]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Are we transcending our racial wounds? Look at today's report from MSNBC:
WA -- White Seattleites have enjoyed a disproportionately larger share of the reduction in misdemeanor marijuana charges -- compared with black people -- since Seattle voters designated such crimes the city's lowest law enforcement priority, according to a new city study.
Overall, police and prosecutors less often pursue possession charges against both blacks and whites. But the proportion of those charged who are African-American has grown.
This doesn't sound like old racial wounds being transcended. This sounds like brand new racial wounds being created.
The police seem to be changing, racially speaking, at a much slower rate than the kind of people who want to vote for Obama.
We're not going to take the racism out of the War on Drugs any time soon. Probably the only way to get rid of the racism will be to get rid of the War on Drugs.
No "electable" candidates are willing to go that far yet. Not even Obama wants to attack racism on this level.
It's pretty sad and it's a sign of how far we haven't come.
-
There are more than two science issues in this country. Oh this makes me boiling mad
[Read the article: A natural experiment in Republican biodiversity]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]On the Democratic side of the ledger, as with so many other issues, the candidates have essentially indistinguishable views on the two litmus tests highlighted by Nature -- stem cell research and climate change.
Oh I am soooo boiling now.
Excuse me Andrew, but the candidates' positions on science seem to be quite different.
Hillary is the only one I can see who has detailed plans for getting America back on top in basic research -- including in particle physics, where we are rapidly becoming a global non-contender.
Why do you people only see science as consisting of two hot-button, highly politicized issues?
This makes me feel really frustrated. And frightened for the future of this country, frankly.
I'm leaning towards Obama thanks to that horrible gaff Hillary's campaign staff made -- alleging that opposition to mandatory minimum sentencing made Obama too liberal -- just months after half the Bush appointees on the Supreme Court voted to make them guidelines instead of requirements.
But if I were to vote on the basis of science, then it's absolutely clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that Hillary is THE pro-science candidate. The other candidates do not come close to making the kinds of commitments she is willing to make to help America retain our leadership in science.
There's no sign whatsoever that Obama supports increasing funding for basic scientific research.
He wants all kinds of fancy technology, hey that's nice.
But what about basic science?
There's a LOT more to supporting American science than just these two highly politicized issues.
Andrew, you should understand this. You do understand this, don't you?
-
Maybe you played a role in her problems Joan
[Read the article: No makeover for Hillary -- yet]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If Salon had published a nice analysis of the recent Supreme Court decision where the justices voted 8-1 to turn mandatory minimum sentences into mere guidelines instead of hard legal requirements, then maybe Hillary's campaign staff wouldn't have looked so stupid in public.
It's absolutely idiotic to complain that opposition to mandatory minimums makes someone too liberal after Scalia, Thomas and half the Bush appointees on the court have voted to make them no longer mandatory.
How could they have been so clueless?
It's like they don't even read the news any more.
You could have helped them out, Joan, by explaining that Supreme Court decision here.