Letters to the Editor
chemical
Published Letters: 20 Editor's Choice: 1
-
on language
[Read the article: The warped reality of our media stars]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Steven Pinker's 'The Language Instinct' is a must read, if you haven't read it already. The last chapter or two address the problem of static vs changing language usage and the coinage of new words. Including those Shakespearian.
The rate of language change is highly variable, however, and can be driven. Nazi Germany was famous for it's changes in the rules of German. At one point, I was looking to translate an early 20th century German scientific paper. I asked a German colleague to look at it, but he simply could not figure it out.
Similarly, the French, after the revolution, tried to standardize their language. Some suggested the Langedoc version, which is somewhat simpler and has straightforward spelling (since they actually pronounce the word endings). This did not succeed, however, and so the student must learn Parisian French, which is the French of the upperclasses. This includes multiple subtle constructions that very clearly mark the speaker as erudite or not. Advanced usage of 'li' in particular. Not to mention the extreme spelling/pronounciation disjunction.
On the other hand, modern Icelanders can apparently read the epic poems written down several centruies ago without difficulty. English, well, they're all very polite, and always ask if I'm Canadian, but we have our misunderstandings.
-
inegrity
[Read the article: The warped reality of our media stars]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well, yes, Shooter, I impugned your integrity. I do not mean lies, because I don't think you lie, outright. It is more a problem of being disengenuous. You do not react honestly to what you read. You appear to compare every post/comment as an opportunity to trot out a tried and true right wing talking point. Your cries of 'but Clinton did it' are disengenuous. Your cries of 'there you go, comparing Republicans to Nazis' are disengneuous. If you actually were honest about it, you would realize that these arguments hold no water, are not true, do not relate to the comment or post that they purport to attack. They are disengenuous and without merit.
I don't argue against that kind of dog doo. It doesn't amuse me. If there is a factual problem that I can correct, for the record, I will. Otherwise, I, for one, will ignore you.
-
applause
[Read the article: David Halberstam on today's American press]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I was talking to a friend who used to be a science reporter for the Daily Telegraph about differences between journalism in the UK and the US. She was quite shocked by the behavior of American journalists at press conferences. They actually *applaud* the speaker. She found it quite bizarre to show this sort of approval and respect for the speaker at a press conference. Proper behavior? To ask a few pointed questions and slink off with some quantity of sneering distain in search opposing views.
-
Fear and false choices/press
[Read the article: Democrats bear responsibility for restoring habeas corpus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree with zack-
The reason the MCA passed in the first place was the failure of the press. The fearmongering that the administration drummed up and the press echoed reverberated loudly in the halls of congress. Fear is one of the motivating cancers of a Versailles culture, much as it is in high school where conformity is so prized. I don't think it is enough to pin this on the democratic leadership trying to avoid looking weak before the election. They are adults, and they all all know by now that the most effective way to look weak is to be weak and completely avoid responsibility. I think there are, perhaps, a whole stack of motivations that include fear of the right wing echo chamber ('dems are weak on national security' meme, esp. near an election), fear of the terrorists (living within the echo chamber), and desire for conformity, acceptance (Versailles).
No doubt, inside the echo chamber, inside the Versailles culture, these votes looked reasonable. From outside the echo chamber, outside the Versailles culture, their actions look completely inexplicable, and totally reprehensible. But they won't know that unless *someone* from outside tells them. Loudly and repeatedly.
I will definitely send this on, Digg it, post it to friends, etc, but, as zack said, it's not the end of the story. This might help correct one of the errors brought on by non-existent journalistic standards, but there are many others still out there. The blogs are helping, but a lot of voters are still out there in the echo chamber.
-
Holly M
[Read the article: Democrats bear responsibility for restoring habeas corpus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What we have instead is 2 failing occupations that bleed strength and stature out of us with every passing day it.
-- Holly McLachlan
Additionally, the distraction of an irrational vendetta against Iraq has served as a rallying point for all the anti-American sentiment that the world can muster. The fact that we lost track of bin Laden in the course of perpretatrating this farce only adds to an international opinion that the Americans are unable to focus on the real target. Always chasing phantoms. Naive, self-righteous bullies.
The neo-cons embody the stereotype 'ugly American'
-
a view from abroad
[Read the article: Large number of Americans favor violent attacks against civilians]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]for what it's worth, the Guardian also has an article on the Pew Poll here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2085909,00.html
under the title: US Muslims more assimilated than British
The idea being that some of the reasons for home-grown muslim terrorism are specific to godless europe (including Britain). In particular, less 'ghettoisation'. This should be a warning to Americans -- the more ostracized the muslim community becomes, the more there will be a tendency for 'home-grown' terrorism. It's a situation where it is entirely possible to create your own reality.