Letters to the Editor
noodleboy
Published Letters: 42 Editor's Choice: 5
-
Sigh... here we go again
[Read the article: The atheist delusion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Oh what a painful read that was - sooo much wooly thinking.
Science is not any kind of "religion", it's just an absence of supernatural thinking. It's pretty obvious why "believers" have trouble coming to grips with that.
It seems these people are almost admitting that God is "dead", but don't think us plebs could handle the drab meaninglessness of our lives without belief in a big pay-off at the end. I mean, seriously... The parallel with Santa Claus is a pretty good one - I "believed" in Santa, I got over it, and I still enjoy giving presents to my friends and family in December. How about that?
...and to accuse atheists of being "ignorant about religion"? So much I'd like to say, but all that comes out is... AAARGH!!!
-
Yeah...
[Read the article: "We're all fascists now"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I also haven't read it, but I guess stuff like this this can engender interesting discussion/thought on the "social" assumptions that many of us take for granted, but I have to say that in this particular case itself sounds like a real "dog whistle" exercise - playing with labelling liberals.
For example, there seems to be plenty of "you seem to be saying this" followed by "no, no, I don't really mean it that way" going on in the interview.
-
Discuss?
[Read the article: Unclear if latest YouTube craze has deep sociological meaning]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yup, and when we've figured this out could someone please explain Paris Hilton?
Famous for... being famous?
-
Seriously?
[Read the article: The cure for lame TV]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sound like an interesting show, but... "the 'Snow Globe' series finale where it is revealed that the entire show was the fantasy of Dr. Westphall's autistic son"? What the... what???
-
Laughs
[Read the article: "Jumper"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Interesting see the reactions to this review swing between "review the movie please" and "a synopsis is not a review". Who'd be a movie reviewer?
...so, here's my Bill-Hicks-style "capsule" review of this movie: shithouse.
-
Smart women ARE foxy
[Read the article: Women ARE funny. And foxy!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]OK, take Tina Fey for example. As a "sex object" she is "cute" at best. If you wanted to be critical you might say she's short, ageing, and bordering on dumpy.
...and I reckon she's pretty damn close to the most attractive woman on TV. As per 30 Rock, she "makes smart sexy".
"Sexiness" is an incredibly subjective quality, especially when it comes to on-screen celebs - as demonstrated by the number of conflicting posts on this article. However, if the question is "Why are today's funny women all so hot?", I'd suggest the answer is that they're hot BECAUSE they're so funny.
...I'd also suggest that Christopher Hitchens can be a real fundark sometimes.
-
Yep
[Read the article: I don't believe in atheists]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Just to add my voice to the chorus:
Timelagged and others are right on - I'm afraid Mr Hedges seems to think that Hitchens and Harris are defined by their atheism, whereas in fact they're just idiots who also happen be aetheists.
"I don't believe in New Aethists" might have been a better title for his book... whatever a "New Aetheist" is.
Anyway, I can't take his argument seriously when he says "So I think that I find the faith that these people place in science and reason as a route toward human salvation to be as delusional as the faith the Christian right places in miracles and angels" and in the next breath says "Well in science, one does have progress, because science is based on what can be proved and disproved". Oh, and then goes on to use Hitler as an example of aetheism?
Give me a break.
-
Time to face reality?
[Read the article: "Today, I weep for my country"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]An excerpt of an article from crikey.com.au. I'm guessing US readers may find it somewhat offensive, so apologies for that, but still...
Iraq collapsing, Bear Stearns collapses
Monday, 17 March 2008
US correspondent Guy Rundle writes
...Winners cut their losses, and let their profits run. They cut their losses even if they've failed to cut them earlier – in other words, they don't let the embarrassment or feelings of foolishness or reproach tempt them into hoping for a turnaround when a good result is no longer possible. They suck it up, and take the loss. Losers' logic by contrast is narcissistic – letting your losses run relies on a delusion of some sort of specialness which absolves you from the laws applying to everyone else.
In a media culture losers' logic attaches itself easily to the idea of American exceptionalism – all this "last best hope of man" bullsh-t, as if history stopped in 1776. To maintain it, history must be fictionalised. John McCain's ads have him ranting "we won't surrender they'll surrender. We're Americans and we never surrender!" This man is a VIETNAM WAR VETERAN. He was released from a POW camp only because the US had surrendered, and prisoners were allowed to return home. How does this line – akin to Sarkozy saying "Us? We never get invaded!" -- even work? Because losers' logic is dominating the debate...