Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 260 Editor's Choice: 22
-
aeschylus
[Read the article: No bears for oil]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You said: "I can't believe this even needs saying, but people are more important than animals. The dinosaurs died out, and we're carrying on just fine. Somehow we'll muddle through after the last polar bear goes."
First of all the dinosaurs died off 64 million years before pro-humans even started dragging their knuckles on the ground so that's not really a valid point.
Nevertheless, no one here is saying that bears are more or even as equally important as humans. It's not a 'either or' issue. It's also not just a touchy feely animal lover issue. Biodiversity is essential for the healthy survival of our spieces. The extinction of a large land preditor like the polar bear does not bode well for hundreds of other species down the food chain.
And yes, we will 'muddle through' without the polar bears. But why settle for that when life could be so much richer by simply changing our habits so that we can sustainably coexist?
I recommend you pick up a The 'Diversity of Life' or 'The Future fo Life' by E.O. Wilson. You might start to see things differently.
-
Skin Deep Reporting
[Read the article: Multiracial man]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let's talk about Obama's position on health care, Iraq, the economy or any other issue.
Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza proved years ago that skin color is purely a physical adaptation to our environment. The closer to the equator that your ancestors came from- the darker their skin would be to adapt to the harsh rays of the sun. Conversly, the Laps and Scandinavians have light skin to help absorb scarce sunlight needed to activate vitamin D.
When a supposedly progressive site like Salon reports on this silly handwringing over so called 'race' they are just perpetuating a problem that shouldn't exist. Only one race matters right now and that is the race to win the presidency.
-
Factoidus
[Read the article: Multiracial man]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You said: "...he's inspirational, he's charismatic, he's.....completely unqualified for the office for which he runs."
What really qualifies a person to hold the office of President; 30 years as a jaded insider in the senate, A governorship, height?
By pundit's metrics Lincoln wasn't 'qualified'. Neither was Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt or Washington.
I guess my point is don't poo-poo inspirational or charismatic--they go a long way.
-
Anon at 5:20am
[Read the article: Multiracial man]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You said: "He would not be a viable candidate if he were totally white ... The frenzy around him, I think, reflects the energy people put into pretending not to see the emperor has few clothes on."
Show me an emperor who is wearing more!
-
Facoidus
[Read the article: Multiracial man]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Washington was a charismatic and inspirational leader but a fairly mediocre military leader by most expert's assessment.
Kennedy was a best sellin author-- but So is Obama. But keep in mind that Kennedy's papa bought his most of his offices; including the presidentcy.
I will concede that Teddy was pretty qualified but he owes his presidently to that mediocrity McKinley getting a cap in his ass.
Lincoln was a thoughtful and inspirational speaker that did very well in his debates with Douglas. Have you heard Obama?
Don't get me wrong Factoidus- I get your point. I just think that it's not that relevant. A lot of leaders with so called 'experience' are just jaded insiders that just end up playing the 'game'. Of course there are also good leaders that outsiders that never get in the game--like Carter.
I'm just going to give Obama the benefit of the doubt because I don't have any other rational choice.
-
I don't get it!
[Read the article: Opus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Every Sunday there are dozens of letters to the editor twiterpating over how brilliant this comic is. I have never seen one that I thought was remotely funny or even clever--let alone the kneeslapper that so many readers make them out to be.
I think 'Tom the Dancing Bug' is funny and very clever but it doesn't get half the letters that this peurile pap gets.
Somebody please explain to me the allure of this strip.
-
I don't ass-u-me anything
[Read the article: Opus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"But of course, you assume that since you don't, nobody does. That must be very comforting."
I don't assume that nobody finds him funny. It's pretty obvious that many people do. I just don't get it because in my opinion the humor on about on par with watching someone slip on a banana peel.
-
One Guy
[Read the article: Opus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well said!
-
Must have hit a nerve
[Read the article: Opus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Anonymous 10:03 Said, "Get a life, clown-boy"
And this is coming from someone who gets annoyed that I criticize Opus.
All I basically said is that Opus is not funny to me. I then asked for someone to explain the allure. I didn't grow up on BC or any Sunday morning strips for that matter so I guess the genre never really appealed to me..
I don't think that I ever infered that others don't think it's funny or that I'm advocating a police state where fans of Opus and Garfield ar hearded into railway cars bound for camps.
And anonymous, as for jumping around in my underroos- how would you know that. Do I need a restraining order?