Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 288 Editor's Choice: 20
-
It Would Be a Nice Time For Bush To Prove He Means What He Says
[Read the article: "It looks like the end of the world here"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We went into Iraq because we love the Iraqi people so desperately that we had to relieve them of their oppressive leader.
How about a U.S. led invasion to bring food and water? We could get a decent coalition for that. I bet even France and Spain would come. I doubt the Burmese government is in a position to resist, and we could save millions of lives.
But we have to get there now. As in right this minute. Disease will start to spread within a week, and then it will be too late.
But then again it already is too late. It's been to late for people who suffer since the liar Bush entered the White House.
I lost my home in Hurricane Katrina. It is nice to see that in 3 years GWB hasn't learned a goddamned thing.
-
The Problem
[Read the article: Clinton: "I am in this race"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"If the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton, she'll beat John McCain and we'll take back the White House," said Ricki Lieberman . . . . "If the Democrats nominate Barack Obama, then we know we'll lose."
I have no problem with, and in fact respect for, people who support their candidate to the very end. What I can't stand is this exclusionary logic -- if my candidate isn't nominated, we're going to lose.
If that's the way they feel, they might as well join the Republican party now and start campaigning for McCain. Because in tearing down Obama like that, they are as good as doing the Dark Lord Karl Rove's bidding.
-
I Don't Guess....
[Read the article: NCAA academic penalties flunk sniff test]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]there is much hope for college athletics as long as it appeals to a non-collegiate audience.
If the only people who would pay to see a college football game were students and alumni, the players might have a chance because students and alumni have a vested interest in education as well as winning games.
But most people who watch a college football game on TV barely have a high school education. To them, the team they root for is not any different than any pro franchise, except that the players are younger. The problem with college athletics is that too many people involved only care about the athletics, not about the college part. That will never change, and as long as it is true, the driving force behind college athletics will be to please the customer who couldn't care less if the star QB can speak Latin or not.
It's more or less a lost cause. Academics should do basically what they do now. Circle the wagons, pretend Big Sports doesn't exist and push school presidents to keep the programs out of scandal and keep them from contaminating the academic side. Containment is the best answer for most of them.
-
So Life Goes On?
[Read the article: Rumsfeld blamed generals for lack of forces in postwar Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Rumsfeld: "We would have gone right on if they’d wanted them, but they didn’t, so life goes on."
So life goes on!? Well, not for about 5000 soldiers it didn't.
-
SNL
[Read the article: "SNL" spoofs Hillary: "I am a sore loser"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]hasn't been funny in about 20 years. For awhile on and off in the 1990s and again in the early 2000s they had something going. I thought. Then I saw some clips from the 70s show and realized how far the show had fallen since Chevy Chase, John Bulushi, Gilda Radner, Steve Martin, and Bill Murray.
SNL doesn't do satire. It hits you over the head, and that ain't satire. I also don't see how going postal on Hillary Clinton makes up for the earlier episode. It's as if they are trying to prove something, and that makes it even less funny.
-
About Framing
[Read the article: Has our reverence for DNA gone too far?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Crime scene DNA would be blood, semen, hair, sweat, skin, etc. So unless the authorities have a way to recreate actual tissue and fluids from your cheek swab, it should be near impossible to plant DNA evidence, no?"
Boy, you're naive. The problem with DNA evidence is that you can't see it. How easy is it for a police officer to throw down a knife or a pair of panties and say, "Your DNA was found on this." If you are innocent, what do you do? Can you prove your DNA wasn't on it? I can't read a DNA report, and neither can you, and neither can your attorney. You have to trust the report, and a scientific report can be touched up as easily as a photograph, especially if the prosecution knows your DNA pattern ahead of time, which they would if they had it on file.
I could see a dishonest official pulling up a near match and then fudging the results.
The problem with DNA evidence is that, because it can be easily faked, it puts all the power in the hands of investigators. Back in the old days, prosecutors had to produce physical evidence, like weapons, bloody clothes, eyewitnesses, etc. -- things they could not completely control, and things juries could actually look at. But DNA evidence can be completely faked, even easier than doctoring a photo with Photoshop, and there is no way for the accused to prove a tiny drop of fluid no one on the jury can see did not come from where the police say it did. Can they reproduce tissue? No. But they can take a report on file and say the report came from the sample they collected.
So, without any verification method, since the accused can (and sometimes are) convicted on DNA evidence alone, this puts great unchecked power in the hands of prosecutors.
Not to pick a fight or anything, but I am not sure I would trust my local D.A. with my life.