Letters to the Editor
mintosh
Published Letters: 70 Editor's Choice: 8
-
"Salon's error, not Nathan's"
[Read the article: Correction]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]No Handle got it exactly right. Salon should be ashamed in its editorial handling of this situation. It is Salon who orignally sensationalized the story - even though the article was a fair and balanced treatment of a complex issue. And then it was Salon who wimped out and backed off. They recently did something very similar regarding their own coverage of the Forbes article "Never Marry a Woman who makes more than 30,000 a year.
I am too curious about how Salon will react to this situation to cancel my subscription right now. But I certainly intend to do so in the near future. I also suggest that those who are with me on this issue join together to form a blog to root out, critique, and make public such irresponsible editorial practices. e-mail me at d a n i e l - m i n t o s h @ y a h o o . c o m
-
sorry
[Read the article: Correction]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That's d a n i e l _ m i n t o s h @ y a h o o . c o m
-
HOGWASH!!
[Read the article: Correction]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Nathan's OPINION piece wasn't so much about the facts of the law (which, from the tenor of the piece, are in Nathan's mind vague). Nathan isn't convinced that Eichenwald has done something illegal - she just isn't convinced that he hasn't - and is rightly pointing out that there is too much wiggle room on the part of unscrupulous Distric Attorneys to make this call and pursue Journalists such as Eichenwals. The piece is in complete conformity with the very awkward positon that a journalist researching child pornography today is in. Surely, Salon recognizes this - and just as surely, they are now trying to pull some type of bait and switch on us.
All you people who have posted on this in much more intelligent ways then I just did -- Do not let them get away with it.
-
OOOOHH!! Rob. . .
[Read the article: Reporter attacked]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You're such a Man. So macho and tough. That really turns me on. Can I have your children?
-
Shameful!!
[Read the article: Bad taste]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]bsalyers gets it exactly right.
-
I like Dawkins
[Read the article: The flying spaghetti monster]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]He says a lot of very smart things about the relationship between science and religion. But then he says something like this:
"But to teach children that it is a fact that there is one god or that God created the world in six days, that is child abuse."
This seems to run counter to one of his own critiques of the danger of religion -- that too strong a belief in something can lead to persecuting others based on that belief. My concern is that too strong a belief in fundamentalist atheism could potentially lead to the persecution of others based on that belief (some would argue that it already has, with Stalin). My concern is - what would happen were this particular atheistic belief of Dawkins to become so inshrined within an atheistic culture as to become a law? And then somone were to beak that law? And found gulty of breaking that law. Is this really what we want of our atheism? Somthing as intolerant of free speech as religious fundamentalism currently is?
-
Two points -
[Read the article: Sullivan's travels]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]1.) Sullivan didn't back Bush during either election -- in 2000 he supported Gore -- in 2004, Kerry.
2.) Sullivan has been a very coherent and consistant voice against the current administrations position on torture. More consistant, even, than any left leaning pundit I have yet read. Lefties have been very weak on torture by comparison - as they are too afraid to look weak on terrorism. How wimpy is that.
-
How Liberal could Pelosi actually be. . .
[Read the article: "The Democrats are ready to lead"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]She has 5 kids, for chrisakes! I hope three of them are adopted.
-
How certain can we really be. . .
[Read the article: The wrong egg]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]. . . about Hayes' sincerity in this whole affair. I mean, his emotionalism about the situation would go a long way towards "proving" that he has suffered the sort of emotional damages which might eventually result in a heafty settlement with the fertility clinic. It might. . . be staged. He sees that his ship is about to come in, and so does all he can to trade up to the most expensive model possible.
In either case - what a mess.
-
Looks like some of our posters. . .
[Read the article: Finding my religion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]. . . have a little something to learn about tolerance. This is the main problem with the left -- esepecially the athiest left (of which I am a member, so don't come at me from that direction, please). Too often we accuse Christianists of intolerance towards other beliefs, only to become intolerant ourselves.
-
ThomasHobbes
[Read the article: Finding my religion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]No - you don't sound particularly intolerant. I was more concerned by Bob and Stephano - and the fact that there was so much negative reaction, so quickly filling the page. It felt . . . extreme. And perhaps gave a little bit of truth to the sounding points (mostly b.s.) of the religious right that the left is intolerant of religious folk.
That said, I do think that the best way of avoiding Dogma on any position is to remain steadfastly doubtful of one's beliefs. For Karl Popper, the scientific method was necesarily defined by treating all theories as falsifiable; he saw that the very best of what we call science went out of its way to try to disprove - not prove - itself to be true. By contrast, you sound just a little bit too smug in your committment to what does and doesn't violate the "known laws of physics and chemistry."
Of course homepathists and christianists both engage much less in the politics of self doubt than even the worst scientists among us; but we should not allow this to forget to be both more tolerant (and more doubtful) ourselves.