Letters to the Editor
Taliesan
Published Letters: 942 Editor's Choice: 19
-
You aren't going to stop people having to wait
[Read the article: Ask the pilot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Instead include things like areas where people can smoke. Smokers suffer withdrawal and thus tend to suffer greater degress of tension while waiting then is absolutely needed, and this transmits itself to everyone around them.
Upgrade the air quality on the flights themselves. When smoking was banned on planes the air quality on those planes went down, resulting in a situation where you not only ended up with the smokers getting jittery, but the passangers slowly suffocating all the way to their destination - IE: The rise in air violence isn't exactly surprising.
Include specific cabins for people travelling with small children. This cabin can be specifically tailored to make their lives easier, while keeping them from annoying the other passangers.
Reduce seating density. Experiments have shown that when rats suffer from overcrowding, they attack each other. Humans aren't really all that different.
-
jayackroyd
[Read the article: Rudy, Mitt, Fred or John]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What makes Ron Paul a non-contender is that his economy would be an unmitigated disaster.
This just from looking at Wikipedia:
Ron Paul wants to close down the IRS (And not replace it with anything), most cabinet positions, and the Federal Reserve.
Now while a lot of his positions, though verging on desolving the union entirely, are reasonable, his tax position, in a time of economic crisis in America, would simply lead to America not getting any money in to pay its debts - thus resulting in the worst economic disaster in America's history.
-
Mer Bear Stare
[Read the article: My Christian daughter says I'm going to hell]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Tell you what Mer Bear, how about this: You go to a country where passing your religious views onto your offspring has people all around you telling you that you are a jerk who is "crushing" your child's spririt and then come back and preach you bigotted son of a bitch.
You want to know what is crushing that girl's spirit? Believing her father is going to burn in hell for all eternity because an asshole in a cassock told her so and her mother, believed him. That is what is crushing her spirit.
-
Okay a few problems with the article
[Read the article: Stop your sobbing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First off, it basically tells us to ignore the problem and act like nothing is wrong. You know, because that's how you solve things, by not paying attention to them? Tell me, did this approach solve the problem of Nazi Germany?
Second it assumes that upping environmental standards is any more authoritarian then actually having them in the first place. We don't want lead in our water, we are suddenly authoratarians - by the same standard.
Third, it plays the old rightwing narrative of environmentalists being in it for the power - sorry but renewable energy sources such as solar, hydro-electric and suchlike, are actually more likely to generate competition then oil based energy, because when you set those forms of power up - YOU ARE GUARANTEED OUTPUT. With oil, as President Bush proved in the 70's in Texas, output is not guaranteed.
Fourth it assumes a contempt for humanity in environmentalism. Environmentalism actually makes a case for the redeemable nature of humanity and the idea that we can fix things - perhaps the most inconvenient to the rightwing thing about "An Inconvenient Truth."
There are solutions, and a lot of solutions actually solve other problems (IE: Without funding from oil, how powerful do you think Osama Bin Laden would be today?) but until we focus on the problem and start taking it seriously, those solutions aren't going to go anywhere.
Fifth, it assumes that Michael Crichton is an equal authority to climate scientists on the issue. Don't give me science give me science fiction Salon?
Now, a lot of what one can do to fix things, include simple changes like getting different lightbulbs, installing a solar panel in your roof, driving a fusion car (Electric/petrol) which, lets be honest here, isn't that onerous - Toyota is even coming out with a fusion Lexus.
A recent article on Salon was all about how inconvenient airlines were. Here is an idea: Build up America's railways and replace the short-hop airline with a train ride. The train works on electricity, and it is far easier to fix up one power station then replace a fleet of airplanes.
The solutions are out there, we just need to stop listening to people who believe in the classic James Bond mad-scientist out to rule the world. We aren't in a Bond movie.
-
I prefer my Feta Dutch and my lamb Greek
[Read the article: Snobbery rules]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I eat quiche, can make some really nice cakes, know my way around a decent salad, and frequent the top restuarants in my neighbourhood.
I know the difference between a Itallian and a South African olive oil (South African is generally better) and have a nice collection of infused balsamic vinegars (Along with plain, normal balsamic vinegar.)
I feel that MacDonalds is a war-crime.
Yet I am not a food snob.
Why? because I don't pretend to like something just because it is rich-mans food and I don't view what I eat as a status symbol. If you geniunely like food, eat it, if you don't, don't.
-
barbaran
[Read the article: Stop your sobbing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Their basic premise is that they admit global warming is happening, they know it is likely to be a bad thing, but we should ignore it and be happy because you know, the real way to solve the world's problems is to ignore them and wank to how wonderful we are.
It is not so much their stance on global warming which has people annoyed - it is that their stance on basic problem solving is so blatantly, absolutely, irrevocably stupid.