Letters to the Editor
dawdler
Published Letters: 98 Editor's Choice: 10
-
YASH! (Yet Another Sensationalist Headline)
[Read the article: Was a nanny's murderer aided by Craigslist?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The murderer was "aided" by Craiglist?
By that logic, he was also "aided" by the computer manufacturer of the computer that he used to make the posting. What's DELL's murder count?
You see where this is going...
I know you need to write sensational headlines to pull people into the column, but you're really stooping low here.
Every time some journalist or editor chooses to write a headline like this, I lose a tiny bit of respect for the publication.
-
The Fallacy of "Teaching the Controversy"
[Read the article: The evolution of creationism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The I.D. movement claims to want to "teach the controversy" but simply glosses over the implicit assumption therein that if something is controversial that both sides of the controversy deserve merit simply by the fact of being a "side" of a controversy.
Therein lies the problem and this is the point that the pastafarians are trying to make. Just because a group of people, even a LARGE group of people, believe something does not make their belief worthy of consideration in the context of scientific debate.
A topic should be accepted as legitimate by some significant consensus of the scientific community to be taught in the science classroom, no matter how many lay people believe in one side of the topic or another.
I think I.D. is a perfectly acceptable topic of discussion in history or current events classrooms.
-
Give Gifts on your Own Terms or NOT AT ALL!!!
[Read the article: It's gift-giving time, and I'm cranky about gift cards and pushy kids]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]LW - I think that you should be the cranky aunt/uncle that gives eccentric gifts or sometimes no gifts at all. Some of the little brats will hate you, but the really cool, smart, creative ones will appreciate your independence and they will model themselves after you and become creative, independent thinkers.
I think gifts should be an extension of the giver and the recipient and somehow symbolize their relationship. Otherwise, you may as well hand out cash.
Mark my words. Soon, someone will start a social network where all of a person's friends and relations simply identify the gifts that they want and all a person has to do is press a big red button that says "send gifts" and the system will send all the right gifts to all the right people and the only thing the giver has to do is watch their bank account go down.
This is just like with weddings where the gifting part has become so lame and pre-planned with registries and requests for cash and the like.
I say stand up to the gift-card-industrial complex and the retailers and GIVE THE GIFTS YOU WANT TO GIVE. It may be hard and some people will moan but you will be at peace with yourself and with the true spirit of the holidays.
-
"Reporting Verbatim" LIKE "Teaching the Controversy"??
[Read the article: The NYT's Michael Cooper demonstrates what real reporting is]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This seems really similar to the argument that I.D. proponents make that we should teach I.D. in science classes because it's "teaching the controversy". The implicit assumption is that ANY viewpoint or belief, however false, dumb, incorrect or misleading has merit on the sole basis that somebody believes it or asserts it to be true and further, that said viewpoint or belief deserves consideration equal to that of any and all other viewpoints and beliefs.
Curtis White had a great article in the month's Harper's entitled "Hot Air Gods" that hits on a similar theme, more around religion, but it's a good read.
He points out that:
What we require of belief is not that it make sense but that it be sincere
And this:
...our truest belief is the credo of heresy itself. It is heresy without an orthodoxy. It is heresy as an orthodoxy. The entitlement to belief is the right of each to his own heresy.
These journalists value assertion and belief over genuine objective truth. They think that being objective is reporting whatever they hear verbatim. That's not being objective. That's just parroting. They should be reporting the objective truth. The truth is out there.
-
Moral Hazard Anyone?
[Read the article: Lining up for the mortgage rescue plan]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There should be no bailout at the federal level. Borrowers who were victims of true mortgage fraud should pursue this through the legal system. If there are too many cases for the courts to handle on an individual level, then class action suits can be filed.
Otherwise, borrowers who were stupid, negligent or both should not be bailed out just because the market turned. Why should the federal government get in the business of providing insurance to borrowers against adverse market conditions? What happened to Caveat Emptor?
I guess I should have taken out a low-initial rate ARM too, since apparently if the shit really hits the fan you can always get the feds to bail you out.