Letters to the Editor
deluxe
Published Letters: 90 Editor's Choice: 4
-
...and, barely, Nebraska (because they don't have cheap gas)
[Read the article: The survey says: The "decider" gets its wrong]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Here's an odd coincidence between Bush's approval (according to the article) and gasoline prices. Take a look at the other three states - Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho:
http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_gastemperaturemap.aspx
Yeah, "Lies, damn lies, and statistics" and all that, but one can't help but wonder...
-
Parting shot
[Read the article: Why Colbert matters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's too bad that Colbert didn't know at the time the ramifications of his actions. I would have loved to have seen him finish up with something like this:
"Thank you all for having me, and I look forward to doing this again next year"
...with a nice, fat, smug grin.
Of course, that would really be rubbing their noses in it, wouldn't it. So what lies ahead for Mr. Colbert?
-
MAKE - ANNOUNCE - TYPE.
[Read the article: Making Colbert go away]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]From now on, all letters to the editors to MSM articles should include the following tag line:
"Make - Announce - Type. Just put 'em through a spell-check and go home!"
-- S. Colbert
If there isn't already a T-shirt available with this then someone's slipping.
Please pass this 'meme' (as much as I dislike that term) around to other blogs. Use it with discretion against any 'reporter' who fails to do their job. (The first recipient might be Mr. Cohen.)
-
Longest thread ever
[Read the article: Making Colbert go away]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes, Colbert delivered his barbs mere feet from the president. It bears mention, however, that in numerous cases he looked Bush right in the eye while skewering him (such as the bit about the low polls.) There was no hint of wavering in his voice. THAT takes guts.
(I think adulations about Mr. Colbert's testicles is getting a bit old now, not to mention somewhat creepy.)
But let's not get too carried away thinking he'll save the world. Stephen Colbert demonstrated tremendous acting, wit, fortitude, and aplomb. Perhaps this performance will be a turning point for how some of the public views the media. But it will hardly change how the Bush administration operates, and may not even change how the MSM carries on its job. We certainly need Stephen Colbert, but we also need many more like him to turn the tide.
-
"Missing the mark"
[Read the article: Making Colbert go away]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Eileen B: "I've repeatedly watched the video and read the transcript of Mr. Colbert's presentation. It missed the mark. Where was the irony, sarcasm and ridicule. Waffling back and forth in a sheepish attempt to mock the president's and the press's wafflings simply isn't any of those things... What we 'got' was simply a lack of true committment to the fine art of satire. And that's the word."
Well, gosh, Eileen, maybe Colbert should have practiced more, and fixed some of the flaws. Maybe he should have run the script past more educated writers and editors to achieve the level of perfection that pleases you.
Or maybe he should have simply stayed home, knowing that he would ultimately let you down. But then that raised the question, Eileen - Why didn't you get up there in front of the president and 2500 reporters and deliver your idealized version of satire yourself?
-
The spammers have arrived
[Read the article: Making Colbert go away]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks for that last link (adult porn site). I guess this thread has run its course.
-
Religion on the moon?
[Read the article: Going beyond God]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Bravus: The definition of 'atheism' is 'absence of religion'. (A-theism, right?) One could just as well create the word 'aplogsism', if there were such a thing as a 'plogsist'. But there aren't, so we don't need the word aplogsism in our language. One doesn't need to subsume an opponent's position to negate something that doesn't exist.
If there were no humans on this planet (and there's a greater than zero chance that this may be the case in the future) does religion - theism - still exist? If so, what supports it? Other animals? Inorganic material? Do any of these candidates get to weigh in on the current discussions about faith, religion, belief, etc.? If so, I certainly haven't heard their representation invited to the party.
The Moon is generally acknowledged to be lifeless. Is there religion on the Moon? Is there religion inside a black hole? If there turns out to be other life forms in our known universe, are they religious? Which form of OUR gods do they embrace, or are they allowed to roll their own? Or what if we discover another race of sentient beings who communicate to us with absolutely no ambiguity that they are indeed 'atheists'? How do we redraw our beliefs then?
An atheist can get through life without religion, and finds no self-contradiction in his views (or, dare I say, beliefs). The moment you introduce some ill-defined, evidence-free, subjective belief system you open the door to ALL ill-defined, evidence-free, subjective belief systems, and our energies and resources get used up trying to defend them against each other. An atheist hardly tries to 'subsume these opposing positions' to make it through the day. Simply negating them all with the letter 'A' does the trick nicely, and frees the mind for other matters.
-
Like it or not...
[Read the article: Going beyond God]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Like it or not, the vast majority of people in this country self-identify themselves [sic] as belonging to a faith of one description or another, usually Christian."
Therefore, the rest of us might as well fall in line and follow the majority. And if the majority says that the sun revolves around the earth, who are we to argue? As the expression goes, "a million flies can't be wrong."
But let's extend that logic a little more:
Like it or not, the vast majority of people in this country self-identify as Christians.
(Ignoring the 'like it or not' declaration...) So why haven't the minority of people converted to Christianity? Is there something wrong with them? What part of 'Thou shall have no other gods before me' don't they understand?
This logic doesn't hold. You can't have your cake and eat it too.