Letters to the Editor
Westmiller
Published Letters: 83
-
Blogs can be sane!
[Read the article: The Ron Paul phenomenon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]An exceptional article, well researched and thoughtful, about the Paul ... actually, the Freedom ... Movement. While thousands of blogs rant about superficial numbers, ad-hominems against a few supporters, or shrill denunciations on petty points, Greenwald presents a civil, accurate perspective on the campaign and the message.
Paul is as much of an anti-abortion extremist as it gets, having proposed federal legislation to define conception as the beginning of life, and denying federal courts jurisdiction to adjudicate abortion cases.
I disagree strongly with those proposals and I'm happy to see that Paul has "refined" his position recently to conform with his otherwise very federalist approach (let the states decide).
The key is that he, as President, will not pursue any federal ban or restrictions on abortion. That's good enough for now.
He is near the far end of what is considered the "right" in terms of immigration policy ...
His position is considerably more refined than most advocates on the "right." He is not a nativist and would not build a fence to be guarded by military personnel ... nor would he significantly reduce immigration. He's voted to extend work visa limits, but wants to eliminate the "federal welfare incentives" that entice illegal immigrants.
In spite of claims elsewhere that he is "racist" or "anti-semitic", Paul is probably more socially "liberal" than any Republican candidate in a long time. He is delighted to mingle with the most racially and economically diverse crowd of supporters that any candidate has attracted in decades.
Hopefully, others will follow Glenn's lead and start seriously considering the mainly libertarian message that Paul advocates. It is revolutionary, but only in the sense of Gandhi or King.
Nothing to fear. Freedom is on the march.
-
Tsk ... No food fights?!
[Read the article: Ron Paul distortions and smears]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... a tactic right out of the seventh grade cafeteria.
That is, as you've demonstrated, the last resort of those who have no argument on point: throw rotten eggs or pound the table.
I also disagree with Paul on several points, but I respect his integrity and general principles. Given that he's doing all the heavy lifting on behalf of those ideals, I have no desire to belabor quibbles, much less to throw epithets and slanders on those points.
Your civil and concise refutation of the scurrilous attacks shows them for what they are: pompous schoolyard bullies who wouldn't know a rational argument if they fell over it.
Keep up the good work.
And, yes, do criticize Paul on the basis of what he actually says, not by distortion or ad-hominem attacks.
-
Fred Flintstone Science
[Read the article: The evolution of creationism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]People can believe anything they please, but denying gravity or evolution has consequences in reality. The difference is that denying evolution won't break your bones, it will only destroy the pursuit of knowledge - since faith must be blind.
While debating creationists, I did discover one interesting defensive instinct that surprised me: an insistence that dinosaurs were co-existent with human beings. I call it the "Fred Flintstone" theory, based entirely on ancient artistic creations that are offered as raw evidence of the claim. The fairy tale about St. George and the Dragon, or some variant, was actually part of the original Bible (Septuagint). Of course, modern creationists no longer consider that story to be "revealed truth," but it does indicate their disposition to believe in ancient fables ... only because they are ancient.
I cite that diversion to observe the disposition of some to believe that knowledge is a fixed commodity - revealed, not learned. Perhaps it's a comfort to those who crave "cheap truth" and turn to "divine revelation" as the source of all wisdom, but the propagation of that view has always been - and will continue to be - a threat to science and the pursuit of truth.
-
Hypocrites
[Read the article: Fred Thompson on abortion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thompson and Novak are both hypocrites.
They want abortion to be legally cast as murder - either at the state or federal level - but they don't want to punish the perpetrator, or those who aid and abet such a "murder." It just demonstrates the utter incoherence of their positions.
It's fascinating to see the "Right to Life" Committee arguing that there should be no penalties for "taking a life." Novak is evading reality when he says "No anti-abortion legislation ever has proposed criminal penalties against women having abortions, much less their parents," since any law proclaiming a fetus to be a person requires the full application of every existing murder provision to that act.
It is against the law for anyone to solicit or compensate anyone for murder. If abortion is murder, then any woman who even asks for an abortion - much less pays for it - is guilty of a major felony. Any person who aids and abets a murder - including family members and physicians - is also subject to a potential penalty of life in prison or summary execution.
When will the "pro-lifers" realize that their position requires killing women, mothers, and the family members who assist them in a difficult decision?
-
Rudy IS moderate: cross-dressing works
[Read the article: The Giuliani moderation fallacy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]OK, it's a crude snipe to even mention that Donald Trump likes Rudy's artificial breasts, but it's a good analogy for his political decor: all things to all people.
To carry it too far, Rudy put on the Christian Crusader garb for Robertson. Whatever his sentiments on personal "sins", Rudy will defend Christianity against the barbarian Muslim hordes, with all the military force at his command. That is essentially what Robertson offered as the motive for his endorsement. Rudy is Joan of Arc in drag.
The media is baffled only because they survive on building demons and saints. Crass, crude labels for ideological combatants that really apply to nobody. If you pick and chose from the left-right collection, then you're "moderately" a demon or "moderately" a saint to one side or the other.
On the more rational political scale of liberty-tyranny, Rudy is clearly a passionate and hysterical tyrant ... or at least moderately so.