Letters to the Editor
uberboy90
Published Letters: 11 Editor's Choice: 5
-
Close, Mr. Blumenthal, but not quite...
[Read the article: No longer the "Right Man"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dear Sir,
Although I agree with much of the body of your essay, your first sentence is categorically wrong. Bush is not the most conservative president in modern times, and in fact has turned his back on most conservative ideals. This is why he is stumping even the neocons. He does not stand for the things my conservative father stood for (even though my father hasn't brought himself to admit it), such as SMALL government, privacy, lower taxes (for the middle class), and frugality, with an eye toward promoting small businesses. He is a quasi-fascist with a mediocre intellect who is tossed about by his staff, PR handlers, huge corporate lobbyists, and his own naive grasp of the world around him. He is becoming, even now, an embarrassment to those in conservative circles not because he makes poor choices but because all those choices display the workings behind him...and why? Because he is INCAPABLE of making these choices himself (oh, except for Harriet Miers and that's a glaring singular choice of his, to be sure).
Why has virtually no one in the media had the courage to stand up and say this about him, that he just ain't that bright. Take a look at his achievements before arriving where he did and you'll see that when left to his own devices, he fails each and every time.
In short, this man is unfit for his job, and has now nominated a woman unfit for her job, because he probably demanded it (since his handlers insisted on Roberts the last time around).
Will someone please publish a simple timeline of his accomplishments and how he got the businesses and offices he did? This alone will explain much to the American people.
Sincerely,
Brad Taylor
-
lucky star
[Read the article: Dancing as fast as she can]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well the second page of the current letters pretty much covers everything that needs to be said and in a much more concise fashion than Paglia says in three pages of single spacing. Can you imagine having this conversation with her in a bar?
I love some of Madonna's early songs as they hark back to awkward attempts at "dancing" (and I didn't pick up on the Martha Graham influence then?), and dry-humping, but then again, it was more about the beat rather than her inimitable lyrics, which even Paglia dismisses several times. Since I'm going down that path, how can Paglia even claim a Stones tune is "demonstrably superior" to a Dylan tune while rightfully showing that she'll give Madonna the benefit of the doubt every time--oh, except NOW she's demanding good lyrics.
Can't we simply call a spade a spade? Has Paglia never done a little research into the inner workings of an album recording, especially when there's a producer and young singer involved? In Madonna's early days, like most artists of this ilk, I'm sure she was heavily influenced by the people involved in making her record, from the thump of the kick drum on up through rhyming "material girl" with "material world" (keep it simple, honey).
And then there's the voice, which with a poor one, just about anyone can forgive for someone who has a poetic sense of phrasing or an ability to tease a story out of imagery over the course of a song, and with a good one, can be transcendent, despite a cliche. But Madonna aint really got either, and never did.
Oh Camille, please stop writing about music. Your style fits the critical analysis of pop-culture in some ways, but in others, it seems just as vacuous as the shit you're critiquing.
-
But who designed the ID?
[Read the article: Survival of the unfittest]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There are so many prongs of argument to attack concerning ID, one hardly knows where to start. Several simple premises seem to be obvious though. If one believes that the evidence argues for an "intelligent designer," then who designed the designer, because this entity should be increasingly complex as well as those which are irreducibly complex, yes? Second, intelligent design presumes that one would be in the position to discern both that which is "intelligent" and that which constitutes design. I shouldn't have to begin a very long list of things about humanity, both in body and mind, which are quite apparent flaws, especially considered in the light of such an allegedly powerful designer. Yawn.
One thing I do believe is that ID should not be ignored. The obvious logical flaws in its premises should be pointed out, and then science class should be continued. But the concepts should most certainly be addressed in literature (myth?), philosophy (logic?), religion (deism?), or other comparative cultural classes, where one might show how quickly a deity-reliant idea can gain such supposed currency through clever manipulation of the media and a little infusion of cash.
Finally, the evangelical right--which I understand so thoroughly having grown up in this type of church--must be confronted with the full brunt of logic. I don't recommend playing their game in the political arena, unless it is to bring them under the harshest light that they propose shining on evolution somehow. Academia and every single engineering/science research institution in this country has relied on the scientific method to arrive where it is. ID should be exposed for the creationist myth it seeks to re-imagine as scientific evidence against evolution.