Letters to the Editor
Citizen_X
Published Letters: 105 Editor's Choice: 10
-
Good God, what an army of straw men!
[Read the article: Stop your sobbing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm against scientism as much as the next guy, but in what imaginary America do scientists have "special political authority?" Have these guys read the paper in the last seven years? Jeez, I just want science to be taken seriously.
Which is not done via sniffing about the "antiquated view that there are facts separate from values and interpretations." Yes, I know that scientific study is guided by society's values and scientists' conceptions/misconceptions. But despite that, we eventually discover real facts. Entropy, for example, really increases in a closed system. Thus, the sun will eventually die. Your values and interpretations are completely irrelevant to the matter. Yet Nordhaus and Shellenberger turn around, in the very next paragraph, and lecture us about Earth history. Yes, it's all true (um, except for the planet being 5 billion years old--it's been 4.56 billion years). But those are more facts from those crazy scientists. Are the authors getting "antiquated" on us?
And our "successful" overpopulation (oops, value judgement there) is very recent, and largely due to the availability of cheap oil. What happens after that goes? Our success in filling the Earth in the past has been due largely to the multiplicity of cultures. Thus, when the Greenland Norse couldn't hack the Little Ice Age, the polar-adopted Eskimo culture stepped in to populate Greenland. In other words, one culture was unable to adapt to climate change; instead, a previously-adapted culture was available to take over. Now, however, we really only have one global culture. Can we adapt? Given the last few years in America, I start to wonder.
-
It'd be butt-simple to deflect Graeme's appearance
[Read the article: Right-wing bullies pick on children]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Frost is not "fair game," as they grotesquely say. Most 12-year-old kids will not have fully formed arguments. If one wants to argue against SCHIP, one just says, "Well, Graeme's cute and all, and I'm glad the program helped him, and I sincerely wish him well. But looking at the larger picture..." And then one gives one's argument.
But you're absolutely right, Joan. Malkin, Limbaugh ad nauseum ain't got shit, so it's bombs away!
-
You say that like it's something bad...
[Read the article: American flag pins are for idiots]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why don't you just stab the Statue of Liberty in the eye while bitch-slapping a 9/11 widow?
Isn't that what Ann Coulter calls "coffee break?"
-
Kinda puts an ominous spin on those Verizon ads, don't it?
[Read the article: Telecom amnesty would forever foreclose investigation of vital issues]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You know, the ones where thousands of Verizon people appear, to follow a "customer's" every move? "It's the network," they say. Yeah, it sure is, and it kinda scares the crap out of me.
If nothing else (good, that is), it opens possibilities for parodies that get the word out about this amnesty-for-our-patriotic-telecoms movement. I'm thinking of one where that goddamn annoying Roadrunner blasts into a house with a bunch of Blackwater troops and starts tasering the inhabitants. The courts might consider that one a bit over the line wrt copyright infringement, though. Oh well.
-
That wascally concept "satire"
[Read the article: Telecom amnesty would forever foreclose investigation of vital issues]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Authoritarians don't really get the idea; they think the powerful are supposed to laugh at the powerless. Thus we have right-wing "humor:" chuckling about waterboarding, or other KGB-approved tortures; ridiculing those fearing ongoing domestic surveillance and the step-by-step establishment of a police state; snide comments over the deaths of hundreds of thousands of mere "sand ants."
Satire, my dear virtue, is never elusive. For right wingers, however, it can be illusive.
-
re: virtue
[Read the article: Telecom amnesty would forever foreclose investigation of vital issues]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What are you ranting about, Citizen X? Who was talking about waterboarding? And what does "wascally" mean? Have you taken your meds today?
In order: the state of our nation; I was referring to things you and other right-wingers find "funny;" referencing Fudd, Elmer; no.
-
Fact check: A. Randi Rhodes wasn't necessarily mugged. B. She never claimed she had been.
[Read the article: Limbaugh's latest: Let's bully journalists!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]virtue001 was only being half right, and half...well, I believe they call it "bearing false witness." He/she wrote (my emphasis):
You, Ninny, "poor" Randi Rhodes wasn't mugged. She was lying. The police now say her claims are bogus. Even her laywer [sic] now denies it ever happened.
There's a report on this in Newsday. Click on my name.
In truth, Rhodes, according to her lawyer, didn't see what hit her, but I can't find any claim by her that she was mugged. Jon Elliot did actually claim so, running his mouth off like an idiot. He has now apologized. And the police never said "her claims are bogus," according to Newsday they said they "tried to contact Rhodes after learning of the incident, but were told that she did not intend to file a report."
So Jon Elliot apologizes for jumping off the handle. How about you, "virtue?" Either back up your claims, or apologize.
-
re: Abbybwood
[Read the article: What you missed while watching the Red Sox win]
[Read more letters about this article: Here](Rolls eyes.) Of course Ron Paul supporters won the text vote.
They're the only Republicans with opposable thumbs!
-
No--HELL no!
[Read the article: Blackwater's run for the border]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Blackwater on the border? That's a 12-course Christmas dinner of bad ideas.
Repubs say there aren't enough Border Patrol agents? I can solve that problem in two words: HIRE MORE. They can't train 'em fast enough? INCREASE THEIR FUNDING.
There, I'm a security consultant. Where's my multi-billion-$ contract?
And I love the bit about Blackwater's base being a "defensible location" during wildfires. What are they going to do? Shoot fire? Blackwater mercs don't know any more about fighting wildfires than I do.
Border security is a law enforcement job, not a military one--and these people aren't even the military. They're just hired guns. Besides the obvious graft aspect, why do Republicans want Blackwater on the border? Do they want to put a whiter face on the job? Do they think the Border Patrol is too "compromised" for looking too much like the border population? Do they want more intimidating people on border security? Those are the only real reasons I can think of. And as we've seen demonstrated time and time again in Iraq, mercs will not do the job cheaper, nor more efficiently.