Letters to the Editor
Jenny O
Published Letters: 32 Editor's Choice: 6
-
Who's misrepresenting science?
[Read the article: Is "marrying up" going down?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In general, I greatly enjoyed this piece; as a PhD-holding academic, I found that it hit close to home. But Ms. Mieszkowski does a disservice in her dismissal of one research study on the grounds that it used "hundreds of college students" to form its conclusions. Indeed, most of the science of human nature is derived from the responses of college students. Using college students does not, itself, invalidate a study--it just depends on what questions are being asked. Some are inappropriate ("What presidential candidate do Americans prefer?"--college students won't give us a representative sample) but others are quite apt ("How does the presence of a weapon in the room affect people's aggressiveness?"--college students' unconscious reactions should be similar to most people's).
Unfortunately, Ms. Mieszkowski does not give enough detail for the reader to evaluate why college students may be inappropriate in this sample. Perhaps they are, but without more information, this looks like a broad-brush slander of a study for using accepted research methods. And I hate to see that. I come to Salon for intelligent use of science to better discern the truth in information we receive--not for the convenient use of science to better support an ideological perspective. Let's leave that to Bush and co.
I realize a lengthy discussion of subject sampling procedures would have interrupted the breezy flow of this piece, but Salon's intelligent writers can surely accomplish both breezy and complete.
-
Say it isn't so, Juan!
[Read the article: Toadies to the rescue!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I, too, loved him on TOTN. But Juan, you've lost me forever.
"You're a journalist...he's an entertainer..."??? The world has truly gone mad when anyone says this to Bill O'Reilly. (Even if they're comparing him to Nathan Lane!)
-
And the answer is...
[Read the article: Aw]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]His real name is Kibble. Sorry I forgot to say, and thanks for all the great ideas for his brother or sister (in a year or so, when he's bigger).
As for those great ideas--the Alaskan ones are probably most appropriate since the breed is "American Eskimo"--but I think I like Potato and Joe Conason the best.
Thanks everyone! (Especially Salon.)
-
Well said...nothing to add, but...
[Read the article: "I can give you condoms, but I'll have to tell the cops"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...Freedom kissing? Hee.
-
Well, that's a shame...
[Read the article: Lou Dobbs, Stephen Colbert and the myth of the liberal media]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The MSM basically establish the view of reality in our country. When they followed blindly along after the Bush administration, the nation thought war in Iraq was a dandy idea. Once the press got disillusioned by war, and Katrina, and the dizzying pace of scandal, corruption, and incompetence, it finally starting talking to the public in a way that allowed them to understand how they were being driven off a cliff.
If the MSM has decided that Colbert didn't matter, then he didn't matter. For all the astute (and correct) Salon and blogosphere commentary about Colbert's courage in calling the emperor naked, the country will not realize that has happened. The country won't get to reinterpret Bush's, and the press corps', gross failings through the faux-chumminess of Colbert's persona--because the press itself has decided to promote folksy-Bush again, instead.
Sigh. The right wing has such a great message machine, with Fox News and all Republican commentators in lockstep. If this were their satirist (oxymoronic, I know), they might all point out, "Well, *I* wasn't the one who said it," but they'd manage to embrace the message. (Think Swift Boat.) When it comes from the left, the supposedly liberal media and the Democrats themselves race to kill the messenger. That's why we'll never win.
-
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but...
[Read the article: Colbert feels the love -- from some confused Tom DeLay supporters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...it seems to me that the fundraising letter is not crowing about anything Colbert said. It just focuses on how Greenwald presented his own work. I agree that it seems funny for the right wing to chortle over the Repor', but unfortunately I don't see them buying into Stephen's schtick. The venue isn't the issue here--the guest is. Or have I missed something really obvious?
-
It's even clunkier, but...
[Read the article: Is "choice" really all we're fighting for?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...I think of it as something like "Family rights trump goverment control." That way we also incorporate recent attacks on contraception, and the "pre-pregnant" movement, and breast-feeding fascism, etc...
-
Another methodological flaw
[Read the article: Another reason to blame your mother]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Good points made, but here's the real killer in the methods. The authors appear to have sampled on the dependent variable. That is, they found the group they were interested in and looked at characteristics its members shared, but didn't then compare to a different (earlier-dying) group for the frequency of those same characteristics. It's like surveying the most successful CEOs and seeing that they are driven, energetic, and male, and saying those were the predictors of CEO success. If you also considered unsuccessful CEOs, you'd find that most of them were also male (and maybe even driven and energetic). We can't be sure without some variance in the outcome (in this case, how long people live). Whoops!
-
A predictable surprise?
[Read the article: U.S. officials apologize for rape and killings in Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Is it unusually (or only realistically) cynical of me to think that the anticipation of acts just like this are why the Bush Administration was so opposed to signing on to the International Criminal Court?
-
Not such a bad idea
[Read the article: Freeze 'em or leave 'em]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have a little trouble seeing the problem in this situation, other than (as the author points out) affordability concerns. All this does is urge younger women to expand their options. The doctor may pose it as either-or, but it's not; a 42-year-old still has a choice about which eggs to use, and if she has trouble with her own, the frozen ones give her a good backup. As someone about to turn 40 who just went through breast cancer treatment and may not be able to get pregnant now, I kind of wish I had that opportunity myself.