Letters to the Editor
David L.
Published Letters: 197 Editor's Choice: 9
-
This is suddenly very interesting...
[Read the article: The dark legacy of Carlos Castaneda]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]At first, this story was a big *Yawn* for me....I hate to say this, but I'm 35 and NONE of this Castneda cultism stuff even rings a bell...so up to the part about the missing women, this whole thing was just one long, boring story...in fact, it's just another cult expose, in my opinion...
But when I read the letters from nutbags trying to justify this tripe, this starts to make a lot more sense...this quote takes the cake...
"That he apparently had such a shadow side is tragic. Personally he may have been more akin to Jim Jones, but Jones never achieved the ability to transmit the powerful sense of connection to the idea of transendence on a more widespread level that could inspire as Castaneda did. And in this is the vast difference between the two.
-- kenkapkk "
I don't know if kenkapkk even saw the American Experience, but I think they are short-changing Jim Jones (and his ilk)...the People's Temple had thousands of followers at one time, and some measure of political clout in SF in the 1970s. Sure, his was the more fire-and-brimstone kind of religious experience, but it was just as powerful for those followers as it was for the followers of Castaneda's so-called teachings...
Unfortunately, all you folks that believe in Castaneda's mumbo-jumbo are just suckers that won't admit after all these years to being duped...
So, suckers...you found some kind of transcendent, storyteller bullshit-artist to make you feel better about your existence before you die...so what, big deal? What charitable good has Castaneda's teachings done for mankind? How many poor folks has his philosophy helped cloth or feed? With so many other more IMPORTANT problems going on in this world, does Carlos Castaneda really mean jack-shit?
-
Laughable quote...
[Read the article: The dark legacy of Carlos Castaneda]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"If the concepts are valid and useful, what difference does the source make? It’s like hating a great painting because the artist is an ass who lies about how he produced the painting. It doesn’t matter. The painting is still great.
-- Samson141"
I'm sorry, but your an "ass" for making that kind of comparison...
The source makes ALL the difference...I'm not a member of Jesus's Fanclub, but at least the guy tried to teach people to help the poor and the meek/innocent masses... It's an insult to compare Castaneda and his work to Jesus, or Gandhi, or just about anybody else that had an original thought about the reason for man's existence.
What the fuck did Castaneda ever do for anybody but himself?
-
Gun toting liberal...
[Read the article: I'm almost 21. Should I buy some guns?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This letter is rife with potential jokes about turning 21, but Cary's advice is actually very good...up to the point where he starts talking about replacing Southern ways with a new gun-toting philosopy...that's just silly talk.
What Pewella, Yehudi, and other gun fearmongers don't understand is that gun ownership is akin to homeownership in the South. People in this part of the country, for better or worse, grow up with guns in this part of the U.S...it's practically a right of passage for an adult. So to think that we can suddenly change something that has been ingrained in our cultural heritage is wishful thinking.
And as a liberal, I can understand the LW's tortuous self-justifications for wanting to own a gun. I've been through this myself, but when I married the love of my life (who is the complete opposite from your typical NRA/Republican gun-loving idol worshipper), I discovered that being a liberal and owning guns CAN co-exist, despite what a lot of other left-of-center people think. Our reason is more for protection, given the neighborhood we live in. That's regretable, but it's a fact of life...and there's no reason to be ashamed of owning a gun, especially in those circumstances. The LW is understandably confused, when torn between the way things have been vs. the way things SHOULD be.
The NRA lobby gets a lot of things wrong (let's face it...why does someone NEED to have a 50 caliber machine gun in their house?)....but they are right on one point: guns are only as dangerous as the people you use them. Case in point: TX has conceal-n-carry. Been on the books for years now. Right before it was passed (by Gov. Ann Richards, no less), the gun control lobby would have had you convinced that road-raging drivers would be settlin' disputes with pistols on the highways...that people would just start gunnin' down folks left and right...but the fact is, conceal-n-carry is so stringent that most people don't even mess with it any more...except the law-abiding gun-nuts that wanted it all along, who are the LEAST likely to whip out a gun, even in rage.
See, that's what most people just don't get...gun ownership is not tantamount mass mayhem on the streets. More people are packin' than you think. So you may not like the fact that some folks are (legally) carrying guns.
However...the LW does need to check their mental status and figure out why the REALLY want to own a gun (especially a type of gun so specifically laid out in their letter). You need to have your head on straight before you go running off and by a gun.