Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 13 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Facing execution? Maybe in the U.S.A.
[Read the article: What "loose behavior" gets women in Iran]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I feel that Ms. Frey is being somewhat disingenuous in the following quote: "Will the father pay for his crimes? The article doesn't say, but it does note that a father can kill his children in Iran without facing execution."
In virtually every country in the world a father could kill his children without facing execution. The U.S. is part of a continually dwindling group of countries that still allow capital punishment. The fact that the father would not face execution does not mean that Iran condones his actions in any way. Maybe Iran does and maybe Iran doesn't but we need different information to determine that.
-
The 'Version' Debate
[Read the article: "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I find the debate and passion about the chronology of Narnia to be quite amusing. It should be fairly obvious that there are two 'Firsts' here each deriving from a different definition. Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe was the first book written. Magician's Nephew is the first book in the story's chronology.
They are both the 'first' book.
Incidentally, publishers did not "repackage" the books recently. I first read the Narnia chronicles in the late 70s from a boxed set sent to me by my Aunt in Scotland. That set had the Magician's Nephew as the first book. It was many years before I realized that some people actually considered LW&W the first book.
So... is Star Wars the 'first' movie or is it the execrable Phantom Menace?
-
Rebuttal
[Read the article: The war on terror: Miami]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]C. Peabody-Pandis wrote the following:
"I’m sure some of these passengers thought they were going to die." "Mr. Alpizar was killed because he was a terrorist. He terrorized passengers and crew into believing they were going to die at his hands."
Well, I assume that terrorism charges are imminent against all the media outlets who reported earlier this year on the plane landing in California with no landing gear. It's well documented that some of those passengers thought they were going to die, "terrorized... into believing" in fact, despite the landing being relatively straightforward and unlikely to cause death.
Your argument rests on the mistaken assumption that causing feelings of terror constitutes terrorism. I've been terrified by a good many things in my life but have never thought to label the agents of that terror to be terrorists.
"He was shot after running up the aisle toward the cockpit." This quote from the original story was repeated by C. Peabody-Pandis and others, presumably as evidence of Mr. Alpizar's terrorist intentions. I would like to ask; if someone is desperate to exit a plane, for any reason, what other direction would they run? The door is beside the cockpit! Besides, with newly armoured cockpit doors what would Mr. Alpizar have done when he got there? Blown it up? His proximity to the cockpit would be rather irrelevant if he actually was going to explode some device.
Again from C. Peabody-Pandis: "We live in a period of fear and heightened anxieties. We have witnessed people strapping explosives to their persons and breeze in to open markets, or transportation and blow themselves and other up." True, but we've lived in such a world for several decades. Why the need to make ridiculous, useless changes to airport security now? How will that stop people from "strapping explosives to their persons and breeze in to open markets"?
I also fear that some of the comments made in reply to this article indicate an acceptance of the idea that it would be okay to restrict the travel freedoms of people with mental illness. I fear that someday we will feel comforted by the question, "May I see your papers?"
-
Thanks King
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Just wanted to say 'Thanks' for posting your column early enough that I could read it before going to work this morning. I live in the Canadian Arctic without cable so you're providing all my Madness commentary. I have managed to get a small pool of 5 people going up here! Wichita St. killed me.
-
Maybe men just don't care.
[Read the article: 9 out of 10 women in U.K. study call one-night stands "immoral"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The story ends with the following quote: "Either way, new studies of the subject will no doubt emerge with conclusions of their own. And we'll still be here wondering over the lack of studies on whether casual sex is good for people, instead of just the chicks."
Why wonder? Just don't do the studies at all. Why is it remotely important to know what "chicks" or guys think about casual sex. Have it or don't. Do we need a study to direct our opinions and tell us how to conduct ourselves?
I think you'll be wondering about the lack of studies concerning people's views for a long time because men just don't care enough to conduct the studies or put any credence in the results, statistically significant or not. I read this item with the same seriousness with which I might read a sex survey in Cosmo.
-
Huh?
[Read the article: Ask the pilot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sukinch stated the following:
"For those that think that conspiracies are too difficult because of the number of people involved and eventually someone will talk the easy way to debunk you is this: WMD.
What percentage of Americans thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? 70%? 80%?"
This point proves the opposite. Yes, Bush & Co. used lies and disinformation about WMDs to launch a war. Then what happened? The conspiracy was too difficult to maintain because of the number of people involved and eventually people talked. Hell, Powell himself admitted that his U.N. presentation relied on faulty information.
The 9/11 'conspiracy' has lasted four and a half years without any whistleblowers. The WMD conspiracy lasted less than a year before it was blown.
Besides, WMD was not so much a conspiracy as an example that the general public is stupid and can be easily hoodwinked by political spin. The official account of 9/11 is defended by most independent experts in various fields and debated by others. Conversely most experts, organizations and even other countries never supported Bush's WMD 'intelligence'.
Thankfully I'm pretty safe from all the dangerous people up here in the Arctic.