Letters to the Editor
jlfreund
Published Letters: 37 Editor's Choice: 6
-
...
[Read the article: The bicycle thief]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Bicyclists take up little room, travel safe speeds, use no fossil fuels, ..."
reduce wear on roads, don't generate pollution, reduce vehicle traffic congestion, reduce the need for valuable parking spaces in tight city areas, cost less to operate and insure, ...
"...and are getting exercise in the process.
-
How did the LBGT get in LBGT?
[Read the article: How did the T get in LGBT?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Listing specific names that require a definition is just begging for exclusion and misinterpretation of the law. Wouldn't it have been much simpler, politically correct (and more likely to pass), and powerful to just say that employers cannot discriminate on the basis of "sexual orientation"?
Jason
-
Re: Jim H...
[Read the article: The Clinton Foundation's donors]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I misinterpreted your article as well. When you say the Clintons are hiding the source of their donors, it reads as if there is some nefarious cause supporting them.
And "questions of conflicts of interest"? Don't you think you're jumping the gun? Maybe if Hillary were elected and then appointed her largest donors to positions in charge of regulating their own industry, or included them in closed-door policy talks.
If you're going to raise questions about whether it's ethical and economical for foundations to do money transfers, please cite some data. I would assume that nominal overhead fees aside, it's vital for a foundation like Gates' to support political oriented foundations in order to meet it's objectives. How can you further the cause of alleviating overpopulation, assisting with family planning, and raising the health standards in the poorest nations if the only people elected to government will do everything in their power to stop you?
Jason
-
What, no followup questions?
[Read the article: Mike Huckabee, on a wing and a prayer]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I gave up after the first page of this interview. On both questions: abortion and same sex marriage, Scherer allowed Huckabee to nestle in his rationalization without ever probing further.
So Huckabee doesn't support civil unions because they could lead to same sex marriage. Followup: so do you believe homosexual Americans should lead separate and unequal lives?
So Huckabee won't accept a morning after pill because science says that it ends a "life". Followup: please cite the authority that says life begins at insemination.
The reason right wing politicians are able to spout nonsense with such comforting ease is that no journalist ever calls them on their bullshit.
-
Let's have it both ways -- then everyone wins!
[Read the article: Huckabee: God wants us to fight global warming]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]- The Huckster isn't convinced humans are responsible for global warming but he thinks we can address the global warming problem by following his energy policies.
- Huckster isn't opposed to improving fuel efficiency standards, but is worried that changes will hurt the economy
- How would you encourage energy companies to shift to renewables: incentives or legal caps? Huckster: "Both". Are voluntary emmissions controls enough, or should the government impose limits? Huckster: "Both"
- Coal and nuclear sources are ok as long as they are clean and don't hurt the environment, but drilling in ANWR is not an environmental concern.
-Jason
-
Re: So effectively...
[Read the article: Huckabee: God wants us to fight global warming]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Spinoza: "What your saying is that the one Republican who has a decent stance on global warming not only has not shot at the nomination but has god awful stances on many social issues."
No. Although he claims that he's on a mission from God to save the planet, that's about the only substantive claim he makes. If you read his responses carefully, his actual position on energy issues and global warming is very bad.
-Jason
-
Re: Here's an idea
[Read the article: John Edwards faces his day of reckoning]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Forget the horse race, and just vote for who you think would be the best president, based on your own view of our national priorities. Then let the chips fall where they may."
Ya, people tried that in 2000 when Nader took enough votes away from Gore to give us 8 years of W.
It's time to grow up. Your vote is not a unique and special butterfly; it is a number that will be used in a set of electoral calculations used to determine the direction of the free world.
-Jason
-
Data
[Read the article: Ask the pilot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think the most important statistic is that there have probably been on the order of a billion wireless devices enabled during flight on modern jumbo jets (due to forgetfulness and laziness), but not one has been reportedly blamed on a malfunction, let alone a disaster.
While I agree that it would be annoying to have people chattering on cell phones, the real win for removing the ban on wireless devices would be to get data services (also requires power outlets). I can be much more productive without annoying anyone by using a laptop.
Jason
-
Note to copy editor
[Read the article: My partner is being stalked by a trolling MILF]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Please remove the excess discussion parsing possible substitute spellings of the word MILF.