Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 185 Editor's Choice: 9
-
I too am addicted to telling right-wingers bloggers they're wrong
[Read the article: Help! I'm an Internet troll!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And I love going onto their websites and deconstructing the most most vehemently ridiculous right-wing memes I can find. And then, on their same websites, listing verifiable facts from the public sphere, which in my opinion prove my case.
In fact, in the above sentence, I feel like "in my opinion" is being too nice. I *know* I'm right. I don't mean to be arrogant; it's not like I'm smarter. It's just that I'm starting off from a better position. They're arguing from a deficit to begin with - the accepted ideas and concepts of the 'conservative movement' are just a mishmash of contradictory wishful thinking; the logic is absolutely terrible.
For a prime example, check out "Liberal Fascism". The poor scholarship is simply astounding.
So, I think the record bears me out, especially as per evolution and global warming, that right-wingers are on the wrong side of the facts. And if the Left is bringing facts and the Right is bringing excuses, it's not reasonable to pretend both sides have equal weight.
...So where does this all leave me? Arguing with people who have opinions I don't respect, in a situation where it's unlikely that I will be able to convince them.
So why do I do it?
I think it's important that crap be countered with logic, even if it's fought to a standstill. It keeps the crap from spreading. It's hard work - but if Kerry had countered the Swift Boat Veterans for Rent earlier in his 2004 campaign, we might have a better President already in office.
But to be honest, it also pushes my buttons to see something I disagree with that in my opinion has no facts or logic behind it, being pushed as if it's the truth.
And I don't think that's a bad thing. I am also personally hopeful, from information on the younger population of voters coming up, that they are moving away from the rigid ideological foolishness of their conservative/GOP elders. There are younger conservatives who agree that it would be a good thing to do soemthing about global warming - WOW! There are conservative Christians coming up now who believe in helping the poor - imagine that.
-
Isn't there a third Democratic candidate?
[Read the article: Who among us does not love Ronald Reagan?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Something about a great health plan, and fighting for all Americans...hasn't exhibited a single bit of childishness towards other candidates...does great in every single debate, and matches up very well towards all GOP candidates in the polls...
What's his name again? Oh well, doesn't matter. Back to ClintonObamarama!
-
AT&T's execs must think there's money in this
[Read the article: Yes, AT&T is losing its mind (and might filter the Internet)]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is a horribly stupid, morally chilling idea. The only reason that heads of a business would suggest this in public, is they see big bucks if it's successful.
And I can see why they could think that. If AT&T can guarantee no pirated content along their lines, then the MPAA & RIAA would hail them as saviors and start pushing all colleges to use AT&T internet. And music and movie companies would be able to offer live concerts and internet movies - but *only* to AT&T subscribers, until the other telco providers follow suit.
I hope and assume the technical challenges remain. And the *legal* challenges, even moreso.
-
There's a third Democratic candidate, too
[Read the article: There's no taking sides]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What's his name again? You know. the one with the endorsement of MLK III; the one who always conducts himself with presence, articulation and passion at debates, and most importantly discusses policy and doesn't descend into name-calling?
What's his name again?
-
Too short a test - doesn't provide the full effect of being surrounded by information
[Read the article: Why Google only tells you what you already know]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is the sort of thing that can't be tested for in a single session. To really test for this, you'd have to have people go through the process of selecting an answer, and then searching and finding out it isn't necessarily true, every day for *years*.
Of course people are going to search for information that confirms what they already think.
What our current unprecedented level of access to info has the potential to change, is how information, facts and reasoning are thought of *in society*, and *over the long haul*.
The availability of a great amount of information can eventually train everyone in our culture to weigh one set of information against another, and pick the one that makes more sense.
What this knowledge then has the potential to do, is to cause our culture to have a context that allows people to question their own biases more, and hold to them less rigidly.
-
Good interview - but Flayton's wrong to say the Bush admin doesn't engage with dictators or terrorists.
[Read the article: Getting through these dark times]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This question is asked by Leigh Flayton:
"The Bush administration has a long-standing policy that it doesn't engage with terrorists or dictators."
This is simply not true.
The Bush administration has clearly engaged with, made deals with and supported many dictators. Musharraf of Pakistan, the ruling family of Saudi Arabia, and President Karimov of Uzbekistan are obvious examples of this. (Karimov of Uzbekistan in particular, is known for boiling enemies alive.)
Numerous deals that have been attempted with Shi'ite, Sunni *and* Kurdish militias in Iraq also give the lie to the Bush policy not engaging with terrorists.
An interesting interview, otherwise; but I just wanted to nail down the innacurate premise of this one question in particular.
-
A better solution: allow someone to log in and post anonymously *from that login*
[Read the article: Anonymous no more]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And then if an individual posts abusive letters while anonymous, they have that privilege revoked.
OR - don't allow anonymous letters for *some* problematic sections - such as on articles that inspire Primary Wars - but continue to allow them in other sections, such as in response to "Since You Asked".
Either would be a better solution, IMHO. I've never posted anonymously, but I respect that it makes it easier for some who otherwise would be too uncomfortable to share their honest perspectives.