Letters to the Editor
Xrandadu Hutman
Published Letters: 2714 Editor's Choice: 52
-
Sam Sham 2
[Read the article: Real inconvenient truths]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Ah, yes: now that's the "real science" of today that we all love. They probably came by these techniques through some serious "open and steady debate in the scientific community"."
Are you denying that there has been open and steady debate in the scientific community? If not, how do you explain the tens of thousands of scientific studies done over decades that were directly related to global climate change? Do you think scientists settled on one conclusion many years ago and have been working steadily ever since to find only information that supports that conclusion? I don't.
"Look, here's an actual insult - not just an observation: you're an arrogant buffoon."
Like I said before, my mind translates such statements as meaning, "I realize I am losing the debate."
"How Buttmen can use statistics, and a half-assed education, to squash evidence he doesn't like about a subject he does. About how black people can get beaten down by their "friends"."
What do you know about my education? I think we all can stand to be better educated, both you and me. I do not consider myself an authority in any way on this subject, I just find it interesting and I dislike poor argument tactics enough to respond to them.
As for black people being beaten down by their friends, huh?
-
awesome
[Read the article: This Modern World]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's worth pointing out that Nixon didn't start the war, while Bush sure did.
This, like the failure of the media, makes today's example that much worse.
-
Please somebody explain this to me
[Read the article: Not that there's anything wrong with that]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Okay, an admission of ignorance: I don't understand the history of people stereotyping jews in terms of their financial skills.
It is obvious to me that Thompson's comments were foolish. What is less obvious to me is how you can label the man "anti-Semitic" based on them. It sounds more like a result of ignorance, sloppy speaking, and lack of tact.
I have my own ignorance about this, and I hereby sincerely ask: What is the history of the jews/money slur?
I know that "Merchant of Venice" is about a jewish moneylender who refuses to forgive a debt. I know people have used the term "money grubbing" in reference to jews. I know there is some history of jews working as moneylenders in Europe, in part because they were excluded from other trades.
Is there an upside to this? Does the Talmud have sections dealing explictly with money? Do jews have traditions of being careful with money, strong negotiators and the like? If they do, is pointing it out taboo?
I simply do not understand this. Either the stereotype is based on something real, or it is not. If it is based on something real, it is still an awkward generalization, but is there a reason why it should not be mentioned?
Sorry for my ignorance. I obviously do not personally know any jewish people with whom I am comfortable asking such questions.
-
Anonymous (whoever you are), you are wrong on several counts
[Read the article: Not that there's anything wrong with that]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Anonymous writes:
"Oh, a nice Clintonian distinction. A fine parsing of words without actually changing the meaning."
There's a pretty big difference between calling U.S. soldiers "Nazis" and drawing a comparison between the prison in Guantanamo and practices during Nazy Germany. In the former case, you are actually leveling an insult at somebody. It's directed to the person. In the latter case, you are discussing a situation. It's directed at the practice or behavior. If you can't see the difference, compare these two phrases: "You are acting foolish" versus "You are a fool." Imagine saying, "You're being foolish" to your boss when he was about to make a bad judgment. He might actually respect you for that. Now imagine saying, "You're a fool" to your boss. That's out of line. See the difference?
"And don't forget that no one has proved torture at Gitmo."
The accounts of people who have been released from Guantanamo suggest that torture was commonly used. The U.S. government has admitted to waterboarding suspects but claims it is "harsh interrogation" and not "torture." Since the directions of our leaders were the same for Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, and since there is no transparency or oversight for Guantanamo, it is safe to assume that these people are not treated any differently than the U.S. treats detainees elsewhere.
"Remember the shoddy Newsweek story about alleged "torture" and Korans dipped in urine that turned out to be totally bogus?"
You should look up what actually happened with that Newsweek story. The person making the claim was somebody who worked at Guantanamo. He gave an eyewitness account on the record that detailed abuse methods. Newsweek called generals associated with Guantanamo and tried to get them to confirm the statements. On two occasions the general they spoke to at the Pentagon did not deny the claims. However, shortly before going to press, the original claimant contacted Newsweek to retract his statements. By all indications, he had been pressured by the Pentagon to do so. Newsweek was reluctantly obligated to tentatively disclaim the story.
-
Cheney is a windmill?
[Read the article: Windmills]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'd think he'd be more of a coal-burning plant or oil refinery...