Letters to the Editor
Charles H. Green
Published Letters: 7 Editor's Choice: 1
-
brilliant answer
[Read the article: My boyfriend can't handle my past]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]very very right and very well-said
-
Move On Plays into Republicans' Hands
[Read the article: Jolting Joe]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't doubt the sincerity of MoveOn, any more than I doubt the sincerity of the Far Right. But MoveOn is starting to take over exactly the role that Ralph Nader so aptly played--the destroyer of the middle, and thereby the tool of the Republicans to deny yet another democrat victory.
I mean, think about it. You've got so-called Democrats who, because Lieberman happens to have a relatively different view on this one issue, are willing to toss him out of the party--inevitably in exchange for a Republican.
This is what single-theme politics does to a valid political center. MoveOn is becoming as shrill and mono-focused as the anti-abortionists; as the greedy tax-cut blind so-called supply-side pseudo-economists; as the "government is the problem not the solution" Reagan-clones; and maybe as manic as the creationist morons.
This nation is getting ground to pieces for lack of a center. Do the anti-Lieberman people perceive no difference between a Democratic presidency and Congress and the disaster we have now lived through for 6 years? God save us from the multitudes of people who'd rather be right than be president, who'll drag us all down for the sake of their particular set of principles.
Lieberman is one of the few people in congress who understands the criticality of the middle in politics. The others are pretty impressive politicians too (if that's not an oxymoron)--they include McCain, John Warner, Robert Byrd. They understand principle--look at what McCain is doing against Bush on torture--but they also understand politics is the art of the possible.
Do we really want to continue just hearing Harry Reid and Bill Frist go about their shrill vs. manic routines?
I dread the thought that the democrats might not be able to come up with anyone between to run for office who falls between MoveOn and George Bush--but that's exactly where MoveOn, as well as the Idiot Right, are taking us.
I increasingly don't see the difference between the Taliban, George Bush, and MoveOn. Every one of them claims some god-given unique insight to the moral high ground. I don't think any of them do. I'd rather put my trust in people who aren't afraid to continually explore ideas, and to work them out with other people.
-
Cary's Right
[Read the article: My boyfriend wants me to move, my daughter wants me to stay]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Cary's totally right. Take it from someone twice divorced, step-parent / kid relationships are the killer, even if everyone's well-intended. In 7 short years your kid will be 18--you will have plenty of time to find other guys, but you'll never get back those teen years with her.
And let's not even get started on a guy that would have you leave an eleven year old, has never had kids, and is a neat freak. Hoo boy.
Cary's totally right.
-
Physicists are really bad at philosophizing
[Read the article: We are meant to be here]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There is clearly something appealing about the Einsteins of the world pontificating about the meaning of life. Lay people, as well as social scientists, seem seduced by the idea that physics has some kind of unique claim on scientific truth.
They do. They just don't have a unique claim on the boundaries of science.
That would be where philosophy takes over. One of the jobs of philosophy over the milennia has been to take issues that were at one time phrased as metaphysical--that is, issues dealing with the nature of as-yet-unknown reality--and parcel them out to various other branches of thought, including science.
Hence, to explain the nature of reality, we moved from earth-air-fire-water to phlogiston to atoms and on to today's version of particles and waves. But we're a long ways away from the fire gods.
Except when it comes to talking about "meaning." Albert Einstein had not much more wisdom than an average liberal arts undergraduate when it comes to speculating about things like "god doesn't play dice."
And Davies is not any better. He and his physicist buddies should just go read David Hume. In an infinite world, there are no valid probabilistic arguments that follow from an observation. The fact that we exist in any particular form says absolutely nothing about the "reason" we exist. Even arguments about probabilities are useless if you believe in essentially non-finite universes, and deductions of "meaning" from probabilities are flawed anyway.
Any simple reading of basic philosophic texts developed over the milennia will support this. The only valid argument for meaning is one of pure faith--without reason and without data. You want meaning, go read Kierkegaard, he is at least an honest theologian. Physicists posing as metaphysicians have no more validity than religious fundamentalists.
-
Good article
[Read the article: The secret life of sperm]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I too am struck by the aggressively negative tone of some of the comments here.
To me, it made a lot of sense. She's right about the fetishization of sperm in recent years in porno--I don't recall "bukakke" only ten years ago. I personally think she's quite right about a lot of the politics--this is classic majority-culture vs. minority-culture stuff, manifesting here as man-women, but similar to white-black, etc. The majority culture can get at least as hysterical as the minority.
I frankly am impressed at her ability to tackle the topic in such open and self-insightful ways. Neat lady.
BTW, I'm male hetero, have an MBA, reasonably successful in life, divorced twice, two kids. Not that any of that should matter. But of course it does.