Letters to the Editor
kevred
Published Letters: 92 Editor's Choice: 8
-
MoveOn should have known better
[Read the article: Priorities]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Not to disagree with what MoveOn said or their right to say it, but with the Iraq strategy an ongoing disaster and this briefing not changing that, the better approach would have been to just stand aside and let the bad news remain in the spotlight. By running this ad, MoveOn gave the Repubs a cheap and easy way out, in fact they could even use their same old 'question the patriotism and values of the anti-war crowd' technique to help shore up a base that must be having serious doubts by now.
In short, as Napoleon said, "Never interrupt your opponent when he is making a mistake." Though this response from the Repubs is illuminating, its net effect is to distract from the real issue, which means that in this case, MoveOn has hurt its own cause.
-
Pats' (and others') schedule--the final word
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Saying "You can't call schedule toughness based on how it ended up working out" isn't quite accurate. Maybe you can't call "they were handed an easy schedule", but you have every right to call, "the teams they're facing have turned out to be chumps, so their success and score differential should be evaluated accordingly."
It doesn't mean the Pats aren't an excellent team--they are. And so are the Cowboys, who've also had a pretty easy schedule so far. (As a Cowboys fan, I enjoyed that drubbing of the Rams but also knew it meant absolutely nothing and was just more filler before the Pats game.)
But it's pretty clear that the collective sports-writing world wants someone to get excited about. We all want awesomeness and high-caliber teams to marvel at. Remember all the predictions of how great the Panthers would be last year? That was pre-emptive excitement, and I didn't buy it. Not that these Pats are those Panthers, by a long shot, but until the going gets tough--and that starts in Dallas on Oct. 14--we can only speculate. I have a feeling that game will legitimize both teams, and yet let neither walk away with the halo they've been wearing so far this year.
What's been the clearest signal to me about the leading teams this year is how they've aced the psychological tests. Patriots-Jets, Cowboys-Giants, Packers-Chargers--these were all games that could have easily psyched out the winning teams. (Especially Dallas, who in years past have had a weakness for losing to their division rivals.) But they did what they needed to do, they didn't break rhythm, and now they have a lot of momentum while other teams are still scrambling to find an identity. That's going to keep paying off as the season wears on.
On a related note, if the Cowboys can defend against the big pass play, I think they'll beat New England. If they can't, they'll be playing catch-up and the Pats have a big advantage.
-
The problem with this approach
[Read the article: Stop your sobbing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Apart from the fact that this piece is superficial, anecdotal, thin on supporting data, and oversimplified, here's what I see as the main problem with it:
It leaves out altogether the question of accountability and responsibility.
It's a perfect fit for modern, nothing-is-wrong denial-thinking to believe that if you don't accept that anything is actually wrong and that nothing is your fault and you focus on the positive, then everything magically turns out better.
But people who are serious about the environment aren't asking everyone to feel bad. They're simply asking everyone to be mature and realistic, and to understand how their behavior affects the world around them. That's very simple and shouldn't be too much to ask for any thoughtful person. That type of thinking, not the pixie-dust "we can overcome" mindset the writers celebrate, is what has sustained our species. Our ancestors, in a closer relationship with the natural world, had a better sense of what it could and couldn't provide.
For the authors of this piece to equate that with doom and gloom demonstrates the degree to which they're in denial and unqualified to be advising anyone on this issue.
One final thought--their statement, "To imagine Nature as essentially harmonious is to ignore the obvious and overwhelming evidence of Nature's disharmony," is one of the dumbest statements I've read in a long, long time. Observing the complex relationships within even the smallest ecosystem proves this statement to be a lie.
It's one thing to have a different opinion about the approach we should take to preserving the natural world. But something as shoddy as this has no place in any serious publication.