Letters to the Editor
Marcos22
Published Letters: 47 Editor's Choice: 11
-
name recognition
[Read the article: Al Gore, anyone?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]These polls are mostly name recognition... which is why Romney is trounced. Of course, Clinton's name should be quite recognizable so her numbers should be somewhat more worrisome. My guess is outside political junkies, not that many know much about Obama.
I would like to see Gore in the race. Memo to the other writer: Gore did not run in 1992. Also, it's worthing pointing out that he WON in 2000. By half a million votes. Did he run the greatest campaign? No. Would he have won in a walk if Clinton had managed to not fool around in the White House? Probably.
But, I wouldn't get too worked about a poll 20 months before the election. Besides, neither Giulliani nor McCain is going to get the nomation. McCain's whole appeal in 2000 was with moderates and democrats and he's lost all those due to the war. Conservatives still don't feel he's one of them. The GOP has a remarkable aptitude to believe that the country really wants some right wing purist. I'd not be shocked if they nominated Gingrich or some other wholly unelectable candidate.
-
I'd like to see this
[Read the article: Bill Donohue and I -- together at last!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Rats, I missed this confrontation - I would have liked to have seen it. I'll have to scour the web for it. Donohue has to be one of the biggest phonies in American politics. I don't understand that he gets on all these shows as if he's representing mainstream Catholic thought. He seems to see anti-Catholic enemies lurking in every shadow. I'll never quite forgive him for getting "Nothing Sacred" taken off the air. (Ok, the low ratings didn't help either.)
Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any voice for the great silent majority of Catholics. Sure, there are church-reform groups such as Catholics for Free Choice, or Call to Action, etc. But, I'm not sure they're that mainstream either. Though, ironically, they probably are more in sync with the majority of american catholics than Bill Donohue.
-
Still mostly name recognition
[Read the article: Polling snapshot: President Giuliani?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I maintain that all this early national polling, especially on the GOP side, is still mostly about name recognition - though presumably GOP voters have heard of McCain. Polls this far out rarely predict the nominees, let alone the winner in November.
I highly doubt the GOP primary voters are going to nominate Giuliani given his less-than-stellar social conservatism credentials.
Plus, if American troops are dying in Iraq, it's hard to imagine any pro-Iraq-war nominee winning in '08 - so unless they nominate Hagel, I don't see how they can win. The fear and smear tactics didn't work in '06, and will work even less in '08.
-
A logical flaw
[Read the article: Manufacturing belief]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Simply because we might want to believe in God, or that we're evolutionarily wired to have religious beliefs does not have any actual bearing on whether or not God exists. Religion may be something society has constructed for all the reason Wolpert says, but it's also possible that God may actually exist.
Simply because there are other explanations for religion/faith does not have any bearing on the ultimate question as to why we exist at all, the ultimate origin and fate of the universe, etc.
It does not logically follow that "we're wired to believe in God, therefore God does not exist and we have no purpose." Sure, there *may* not be a God, but certainly Wolpert hasn't proved anything. He simply has his own belief in unbelief.
I'm also not convinced that the benefits of belief were sufficient such that natural selection would have any bearing on making believers more successful and, thus, grow in number over time.
-
Well, they are right...
[Read the article: Caught on tape]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dennis Kucinich is not going to win the nomination. Nor will Gravel or Richardson.
They do need to eventually have smaller debates, and with a ridiculuosly front-loaded primary schedule - they can't exactly wait until after Iowa or NH when others drop out. Obviously who to exclude is unclear but... at some point can't we agree that 8 candidates are too many for a decent debate?
-
Fielding bible
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=crasnick_jerry&id=2840290
talks about the "fielding bible" :
http://www.baseballinfosolutions.com/fielding_bible.html
But you can't just read it online, it's $20 to buy, so I don't know all the intricate details as I have not read it. I will say that Adam Everett is a great defensive shortstop; too bad he got hurt this year.
Perhaps Salon will spring for a copy for you.
-
Texas
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm still astonished Texas played Ohio State the last 2 years. Apparently it was a fluke. The next 2 years it appears that other than a cream-puff to-be-announced first game of the year, UT will take on UTEP and Arkansas in 2008, and Arkanas and Central Florida in 2009.
I suppose Arkansas is an old rival from the old Southwest Conference days, but still.
Anyway, teams schedule these lesser teams for week 1 because, I guess, there's no pre-season and the way it's set up, pretty much every powerhouse team feels they have to go undefeated to win a national title.
One other thing, schools like Rice get a huge financial boost when Texas comes to town (ok, this year it's in Austin) because Houston is crawling with Texas alumni who want to see them play without driving 3 hours and with easier tickets to buy than in Austin (Rice moved the game to Reliant Stadium the last 2 meetings in Houston).
I'd much rather see Florida and Texas play but ... with teams rewarded for going undefeated much more so than anything else - I doubt this happens any time soon.