Letters to the Editor
dawdler
Published Letters: 110 Editor's Choice: 11
-
Selective Breeding is not Cloning
[Read the article: What's the matter with cloning Rex?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Kirsten Weir makes an interesting point that maybe cloning pets shouldn't be such a big deal since we've been modifying animal breeds for millenia.
However - there's a HUGE difference between selective breeding and genetic engineering through direct modification of DNA. Selective breeding works within the constraints of evolutionary change (granted, it's accelerated).
Cloning and genetic engineering work outside of the constraints of normal reproductive evolution -- constraints which are a natural check. Without those constraints, we're opening up a pandora's box of issues which must be carefully weighed.
And really - all the genetics aside - we should be adopting our animals from the pounds and shelters!
-
Priya - you are 100% right
[Read the article: Years of magical thinking]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Running with Scissors reads like a tawdry ABC after-school special. Sure - the situations are somewhat entertaining and humerous, but the writing is just poor, poor, poor and lacks any depth or nuance. I don't really have anything against Burroughs, but it disheartens me when such mediocre works are so overhyped. And comparing Burroughs to Sedaris is like comparing Dan Brown to Umberto Eco. I can't help rolling my eyes when people start talking about how good "The DaVinci Code" was -- a book that reads like a bad Hollywood action movie.
So from one unabashed literary snob to another -- Priya you are 100% right.
-
Two Things
[Read the article: I Like to Watch]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]1 - "Real" people are not good subjects for do-gooder type shows because "real" people are so flawed that they are beyond redemption. We should go back to worshipping the fake people of TV-before-reality-TV.
2 - "One of my favorite things about teenagers is that they have no idea how empty and tedious their lives are going to be eventually." Good lord - you think the life of a teenager isn't empty and tedious? Have you ever listened to two teenagers talk to each other? What could possibly make you think that adult life is MORE tedious than teen life? At least adults can (usually) *afford* mind-numbing substances like cable TV and expensive booze.
-
Appreciating a work of literature "despite"
[Read the article: The Jesus symbol, the witch and the wardrobe]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Miller states:
"Learning to appreciate a literary work's qualities when you disagree with it ... that's a skill you learn only as an adult"
This implies that kids lack the skill to appreciate a literary work's qualities when they disagree with it. But kids, by nature, do not AGREE or DISAGREE with a work of literature. BTW - this notion is also flawed - the idea of AGREEING with a literary work reduces literary works to STATEMENTS. But let's say, for the sake of argument that a literary work makes a STATEMENT. 99% of the time, kids do not perceive these STATEMENTS. I certainly didn't get a Christian subtext in the Narnia Chronicles.
When I was an undergrad I learned of the Christian themes of the Narnia Chronicles. I was a bit disappointed for about half a second but then I asked myself - why? The joy that I got from those books is undiminished. I'll be a dad in four months and I am already impatient for my son to get old enough to enjoy the Narnia Chronicles as much as I did -- STATEMENT or no.
-
To "Caregiver": It takes two to politicize
[Read the article: The Jesus symbol, the witch and the wardrobe]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Caregiver states:
"The Chronicles" has apparently been hijacked by the fundies and any movie they want to send their members to see is something I will avoid."
If you and your husband think you'll like the movie then you should go. First, it's just a MOVIE that I'm pretty sure was simply made to make $$$ not to achieve a political end. Second, it takes two sides to make something political. By reacting to the fundies you MAKE this political whereas if you simply enjoyed the movie for what it is (a movie) you'd take all the wind out of their sails.
My 2 cents.
-
In response to James re: "ID should be mentioned in science classes briefly"..
[Read the article: Survival of the unfittest]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]James says:
"It's [ID] a philosophical position, and it should be covered in science classes in about two sentences."
Why would we present a "philosophical" position in a SCIENCE class?
If we briefly presented EVERY theory that "some people" believe in a classroom, then the entire class would be spent giving equal time to *unequal* hypotheses. "Some people" (a lot of people!) believe in Scientology. Maybe we should present that in science classes too! Hey - it's got the word "science" in it!
I think a lot of this superficial argument misses a deeper point. As a society, we (including our founding fathers) have chosen to root our civic structures in rational thought (logos*) and science while relegating religious and mystical thought (mythos*) to private life. Since ID has no scientific basis but is instead rooted in mystical thinking, it cannot and should not, by our system, be taught in schools.
Those who are aredently pushing ID in public schools desire to subvert the rational basis of our civic structures and return to a world where mythos rules. That's called a Theocracy.
(* Read Karen Armstrong's "The Battle for God"... interesting treatise on fundamentalism).
-
Ideas for "Salon Web 2.0"
[Read the article: Salon gets (more) interactive]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One of the biggest issues with this 2 way web thing is seperating the good stuff from the fluff,chaff,etc.... Democratic web does not mean that some people's content is just better than other people's content. So make it a real democratic web -- not the people's republic of web 2.0:
* Allow us to give feedback about each other. Then start maintaining a feedback store for each reader's contributed content. The higher a person's score, the closer to the top you float that person's content.
* Similarly, score people on how often they contribute and do other stuff. The more they contribute, the more visible they become (but it has to be "good" contribution -- thus the necessity for feedback scores or some such mechanism)
* Allow people to nominate "best contributor of the month" or best article or best blog. Basically do a web 2.0 awards show.
* Allow people to tag content
* Have a tag cloud showing what the current zeitgeist is
A lot of my suggestions are basically ways to "shape" the user-contributed content and allow the good stuff to become more visible.
It's an attention economy after all...
-
No Spectacular Crashes in Luge? ;)
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]King - you spoke too soon! Samantha Retrosi's crash today was awfully spectacular! Yikes!
http://cbs.sportsline.com/olympics/winter/story/9230831
Thank goodness she seems to be OK.