Letters to the Editor
tempus
Published Letters: 469 Editor's Choice: 8
-
You have it backwards Anonymous
[Read the article: My boss says I'm a lesbian but I'm not!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm a straight male, and while I don't shave my legs, I do wax them. If anyone asks me why, I say it's because shaving is such a pain.
As I understand it (and from watching the early Man Show), waxing is truly "such a pain" while shaving CAN be a pain if you use a dull razor or nick the crap out of your skin.
Accuracy people! Accuracy!
-
Glenn...
[Read the article: Jay Rockefeller channels Dick Cheney's fear-mongering to urge telecom amnesty]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Have you submitted a rebuttal Op-ed/letter to the editor to the NYTimes? You, Lederman, and Anonymous Liberal should each submit in the hopes that one or all will be published. This crap from Rockefeller must not stand unchallenged.
-
Shooter...does this mean...
[Read the article: Mukasey's nomination and the sudden opposition to "waterboarding"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]No, the CIA does not waterboard any longer.
Really? How do you know? Because they say so? That's enough? No proof needed, just a liar speaking a lie? I want PROOF.
Second, you forget something. It WAS illegal and is illegal still today to torture. Waterboarding is torter. Ergo, the CIA admits it WAS acting illegally before to ban waterboarding "now" vs before. By your logic, I can get off free if I am a bankrobber by simply declaring, "I don't rob banks any longer!", forgetting the fact that I used to rob banks. "I don't rape women any longer!" Does that work too? Past rapes are OK so long as you don't do it any longer?
Anyone and everyone that had a hand in torture, from those at the bottom that conducted the torture to those at the very top that OK'd the torture, are criminally liable for their criminal acts, even if they don't do it any longer or no longer OK it.
-
@ondolette
[Read the article: Mukasey's nomination and the sudden opposition to "waterboarding"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As I recall, from reading other articles on it, the cellophane (actually saran wrap) over the mouth makes the feeling intense because when the water dribbles into the nose forcing a gag and a gasping for air, it is impossible to gasp. It is worth noting that they do the technique on trainees in the CIA, and the average time to breakdown is 40 seconds, even though they know it's a drill.
This is an example of why the USAF no longer uses physical abuse and other such tactics in their combat survival school for combat fliers (I used to be one). They RIGHTLY have concluded the obvious: one cannot be trained to withstand torture but one CAN be trained to withstand a great deal of mental torture. Thus, the actual "stuff" they pull on you in USAF combat survival training is psychological in nature because it is a simple fact that under torture EVERYONE breaks. That is one of the first things they tell you and they also tell you that everyone has a pain threshhold that is not trainable. Your personal threshhold is your personal threshhold and pounding the crap out of you or torturing you (under close control in even a tightly controlled setting) will not help you out whatsoever. You will break like everyone breaks. They don't do waterboarding for similar reasons. No one is immune to drowning and cannot be made immune to drowning so what's the friggin' point in exposing you to drowning?
A follow-on to this is the simple fact that torture doesn't work. Since, for some, it isn't enough to simply state the obvious (that torture is in and of itself a great evil and wrong and can NEVER be justified, particularly for a "liberal democracy" that seeks to claim moral authority on any matter), the operational fact is torture produces garbage. Sure, anything you know you WILL spill under torture, but you will also spill anything and everything you DON'T know. You will say ANYTHING, admit to ANYTHING, to make the torture stop. The torturer is then left, if they actual give a f*ck, with trying to parse the fact from the fiction. A totally innocent person will spew out all kinds of self-incriminating nonsense, admitting to any number of crimes just like someone actually guilty of the same. You cannot tell the difference, thus it is total crap to use it in the first place. Once more, you can get the SAME "intelligence" from a subject if you use non-painful euphoric drugs rather than torture. If you just MUST get crap information, how about defaulting to the non-painful, non-torturing means of using drugs rather than sexually-deviant physical torture? The information gained is equally shitty afterall, so it makes no difference if so-called "information" is what you are after. The ONLY reason to use torture is psycho-sexual. You are a friggin sick pervert and/or a sociopath to choose torture, plain and simple.
-
I DESPISE flying now
[Read the article: Ask the pilot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Besides being packed like a sardine into a seat between people too big for the space, the "security" is ridiculous to the point of stupid.
First of all, why does the airline need to know you are who you say you are? Where is the "danger" in traveling anonymously? There is NO danger to anyone in any of us traveling freely, without having to show our "papers", anywhere in our own country. As long as you are not walking onto an aircraft with a firearm, knife, or other (valid) weapon, you aren't going to be hijacking, blowing up, or shooting anyone are you? So you wish to travel as John Smith for whatever personal reason, so what? No weapon? Then the aircraft, crew, and passengers are safe.
As for the liquid bomb plot...that was debunked way back when. It is not a viable nor reasonable threat and so any defensive measures (like taking your toothpaste or soda) is total bullshit.
Flying sucks and I would like nothing more than for airlines to start going bankrupt as a direct result of the idiocy and privacy violations involved in airline "security".