Letters to the Editor
Xrandadu Hutman
Published Letters: 2714 Editor's Choice: 52
-
Sam Scam Sham's arguments against global warming science (2)
[Read the article: Real inconvenient truths]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"*The smug morality of GW believers."
-- Like I said, this is an emotion-based reason. Sorry for being smug, but I could be the most polite Boy Scout in the world or the biggest asshole in the world, and it doesn't have any bearing on whether the science is true.
"*The scientists didn't have answers for the senators who posed difficult questions."
-- Anecodotal at best. I remember somebody's post in here to that effect. I'm guessing this whole incident has been trumped up and exagerrated. But it's moot anyway. Whatever some guys did at a meeting is irrelevant to the question of whether the GW science is true or not.
"*The way GW is blamed for everything from allergies (and even boredom) to yellow fever."
-- Has no bearing on the truth or untruth of GW science. Who is making such assertions? They should be considered on a case-by-case basis. It is true that we can't jump to conclusions over every short-term thing that occurs, and I guarantee you the majority of GW scientists are well aware of this. The bulk of GW science is based on a study of thousands of years of climate history and other long-term evidence, not on stuff like "It was really hot yesterday."
"*The bald-faced lies surrounding the organic food industry and genetically modified foods."
-- Has no bearing on the truth or untruth of GW science. Not only that, but it's off-the-map in terms of relevance to the subject.
"*The fact the people pushing this "emergency" haven't changed their ways."
-- Has no bearing on the truth or untruth of GW science. This seems to be related to reports that Al Gore had a crazy-high electric bill. But there are also reports that he had his entire house re-done with solar panels and other energy-saving, eco-friendly measures. The man does have a large house...maybe he should live in a teepee. Again, this has no relationship with the scientific question of whether the phenomenon is real.
"*The bottled water nonsense."
-- Has no bearing on the truth or untruth of GW science. You're just padding your list with other things that annoy you.
"*Organizing concerts for Madonna's Kabbalah Club."
-- Now you're really just padding (and degrading) your list. Do you expect people to take you seriously? You're actually making a pretty good argument in favor of global warming by representing the other side in such a silly manner.
"*The rampant anti-Americanism."
-- Has no bearing on the truth or untruth of GW science.
I'd say about 95% of your reasons are based solely on emotions (that makes me feel icky so I am against it), and the rest are anecdotal, peripheral, or weak.
For somebody so concerned with truth, you don't follow your own principles at all.
-
Not too bright, Rob Anderson. Not too bright at all...
[Read the article: And now, for news that really matters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Fuck you, Joan. Fuck you straight to hell."
My guess is you typed this while crying. That's how it comes across.
"And I say that as a progressive-leftist Chomskyite."
Then it's even more hilariously stupid because Noam Chomsky never loses his cool or descends to curses like that.
"The man was run out on a rail over next-to-nothing, his implicit freedom of speech violated like almost no one's has been before."
Be rational. Nobody violated Don Imus's freedom of speech. He was quite free to say what he did. Other people were free to criticize him and to freely express their view that Imus's comments were offensive. Don Imus's bosses were then free to react, and they freely chose to fire him. Throughout it all, Don Imus has continued to freely express himself. Al Sharpton gave him a forum for continued free speech.
It's amazing how often people confuse "freedom of speech" with "freedom from the consequences of speech."
You, too, are free to defend Imus, and free to act like a crybaby in an online forum and tell an editorial writer to fuck off. And I am free to tell you you're being ridiculous. Imus is a millionaire with a long history of bigoted statements. He's a shock jock who, in spite of years of broadcasting experience, has (in my opinion) contributed almost nothing of value to the culture, nor has he used his post to sharpen his game or that of his listeners. Instead, he has repeated a lazy type of thinking that sees no problem with casually referring to people in a disrespectful manner based solely on their ethnicity.
But keep defending Imus all you want. Keep defending the lazy-minded millionaire and poor little victim. Let Noam Chomsky do the hard work of looking after the stomped-on people of East Timor, Iraq, Sudan and elsewhere.
-
Disinvite him
[Read the article: A cheating bully is ruining our racquetball games]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Just tell him flat out, "We don't enjoy playing with you because you're a bad sport, so you're out, end of story."
It's fun having balls. Things get done.
-
You people screaming "First Amendment" don't understand the Constitution
[Read the article: No more whining excuses]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"It's called the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America."
– Rob Anderson
" 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' "
– Anonymous (Rob Anderson again?)
Defend to the death, eh? What are you going to do, get into a gun battle with Don Imus's employers and force them to re-hire him or else?
The First Amendment has to do with government restriction on speech. It doesn't say that if you have a radio show you can spout whatever nonsense you like and the radio station is compelled to keep you employed.
I take it you missed that class in high school?