Letters to the Editor
Whispers
Published Letters: 269 Editor's Choice: 9
-
Field goals unexciting?
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As a Patriots' fan, I have to object.
If the Giants had a better kicker, like Mr. Vinatieri, they would have won the game.
-
sexism plays a role
[Read the article: The American media's fringe ideological view of Pelosi's trip]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]While male Democrats have had to endure a lot of media abuse over the years, the storms aimed at Pelosi and Hillary Clinton are noteworthy for their evident blind hypocrisy and level of vitriol. I cannot help but think that the forces of sexism play a role here. Sure, part of it is the willingness of reporters to uncritically pass on Republican talking points, but not all of the noise comes from the usual suspect of GOP shills.
But I think it is important to keep in mind that the origin of these stories is entirely partisan. While it is difficult to understand why reporters and pundits buy into the bizarre Republican framing of the issues, including ignoring Gingrich's trips to Colombia and China and the simultaneous trips of several GOP congressmen, there is no doubt that the origin of the story is pure GOP.
-
equal time?
[Read the article: Something to believe in]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We are subjected yet again to the tiresome complaints of a person "wrestling" with "doubts" about religion.
You know, there are millions of people who aren't "wrestling" at all. People who have simply taken a more rational approach to doubt: a doubt is a doubt. If a human being wants more from a religion, there is nothing wrong with that person.
I presume that this kind of article is aimed at the atheist reader, to reassure him that there is nothing wrong with trying to believe in God, even when it seems like the whole story seems at first blush to be ridiculous.
The comments about Francis Collins are interesting. Given that somewhere between 70-80% of all working scientists are atheists of one sort or another, I have to keep asking myself why the "fair and balanced" media insist on giving any kind of theistic scientist a platform to speak. If Salon wanted to represent the theological thinkings of the large majority of scientists, wouldn't it be reasonable to have an atheistic scientist write a column once in a while? I'm sure there would be hundreds of volunteers, including myself.
Let's see...we have a letter from a self-described "Optomist" and "scholor" who wants to tell us about God, but cannot even spell. I am, for one, tired of seeing optimism being equated with faith.
We have a letter from somebody who "claims to be" an Episcopalian priest. He seems to think atheists are "trying on ideas found at a second-hand store". Funny, that's how I've viewed a lot of religious people. Most atheists I know have read a lot of religious texts, and can run rhetorical circles around the run-of-the-mill theist.
I'm sorry to be going ad hominem here, but who fired the first salvo?
Quite simply, in today's American culture, you can spend twenty years of your life partying, womanizing and doing drugs, but if at the end of this time you step forward and talk about "finding God" and being "born again", that will suddenly validate you in the eyes of the vast majority of society. In contrast, the person who never deviates from the alleged mores of religious society, but simply cannot be bothered with the worship, is viewed as morally untouchable by the same people.
It does become a bit tiresome after a while.
-
narcissists
[Read the article: The right-wing brain in action]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Curious how the traits of authoritarians are so similar to those of narcissists. Most tellingly are the detachment of thinking from reason, the rampant usage of distraction and avoidance in debate, and the general assertion of authority, including the presumption of superiority.
With Reynolds, we also see that projection is a tool to be used.
As for the chlorine truck: this is really getting tiresome. Did the US go to war to prevent Iraq from having chlorinated pools? Is bleach now considered a weapon of mass destruction? Just where is this line of logic leading to? Chlorine is a chemical that can be collected by a high schooler with a store bought chemistry set.
As Atrios is fond of saying when confronted with an argument of this ilk - oh, the stupidity, it burns!
-
shooter's looking for straw men
[Read the article: The right-wing brain in action]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Any kind of "ideal" government would have among its basic requirements:
a) not promoting genocide
b) allowing people to use bleach
I don't see what the search for an "ideal government" has to do with the current post of Glenn's, except as a way of serving as evidence for the curious psychology of authoritarians. Confronted with a coherent argument, Shooter's response is to change the subject.
Pretty typical.