Letters to the Editor
Tideswimmer
Published Letters: 383 Editor's Choice: 47
-
A good review
[Read the article: "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I can't wait to see it... providing it comes to my little corner of the world. It doesn't exactly sound like cineplex material.
-
Freedom Requires Religion
[Read the article: Romney and Huckabee's religious intolerance ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hey, Romney. The sheer overwhelming idiocy of your speech is driving me insane.
A pursuit of secularism in public policy means that we draw an absolute separation between private religious matters and public discourse. Romney, you idiot, that means that if you follow that one rule, then YOU get to believe what you want to believe, I get to believe what I want to believe, and all those millions of other people out there get to believe whatever weird-ass thing that THEY want to believe.
How amazing is that? No one gets to tell you what to believe! THAT, you pathetic hypocritical moron, is FREEDOM, no religion required. It really couldn't be simpler, you asinine twerp.
It was not the "intolerance of secularism" that forced you to defend your religious beliefs. If you'd lived by my secular rules, you would never have had to say a god damned word about it. It was the intolerance of a certain segment of political Christians who forced you to "explain yourself." FREEDOM, you brain-dead power-junkie, would have been going before them and telling them as bluntly as possible to go fuck their sanctimonious selves because the specifics of your faith are none of their god damned business.
See how much trouble you brought on yourself by ignoring the wisdom of the founders? Don't blame secularists, it's your own damn fault.
-
A dangerous game
[Read the article: The man who lost his past]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It occurs to me that even if Bruce was faking it, it is still a dangerous game. Might it not be very hard to hold on to some memories when you are consciously devoting almost all your mental energy into convincing everyone that those memories don't exist?
Imagine trying to pull off that fraud while constantly trying to draw that line between "semantical" memory and the personal memories... at what point do I reveal myself to be a fraud? It seems to me that there is a difference between knowing that a Chevrolet is a kind of car, and knowing that you have extensive mechanical knowledge because you worked on cars as a teen. "Oh, look, a chevy." Vs. "The Chevy isn't starting, and it sounds like a problem with your alternator to me." Well, how would you know the latter unless you had experience with cars?
So the safest course, in keeping up the fraud, would be to try to blank out as much knowledge as you can. Better to forget way too much than to remember even a little bit more than you should. At what point of rewiring the things you should and shouldn't know do you actually start erasing memories? Is that possible, to actually consciously forget something? Wouldn't that be like trying not to think about an elephant?
Interesting article.
-
No win situation
[Read the article: Kansas O'Flaherty ... Secret Agent]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Okay, this is episode 5. Episode 4 featured a sidekick trying to steal something, KOF wasn't even in it. The other episodes featured KOF flying off to a different city each week, doing absolutely nothing, then moving on.
It's like playing an old video game of Carmen Sandiego, except at least in that game there was a point to the whole exercise.
I've read this 5 weeks now, and I still have no idea why it exists. I don't get it. And by that I mean, I get it: too hip inside references to genre cliches; stupid quick expositional crap like this week's Aunt Bea reference. I get all that-- yeah, so?????
But I have a feeling if I met the creators and said that to them, they would chortle—yes, chortle— and say "Exactly!" in that way that smug people do when they want to make it clear that they are still way ahead of you on the cleverness scale because they've forced you to waste a lot of time and mental energy trying to make sense of their self-satisfied blather.
Face it, everyone. You're fighting a losing battle. The fact that you don't get the joke IS the joke. And even if you do get the joke, your only reward will be is that you get the joke.
And by the way, where is it written that jokes have to be funny? Guess that's part of the joke, too.
-
Hilarious!
[Read the article: The K Chronicles]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Actually, these don't seem all that far beyond the realm of possibility. But I can't imagine all the PETA celebs letting that petting zoo go unprotested. "How would you like it if you were kept in a pen and a bunch of reindeer came up and put their paws all over you all day?"
-
That's sad
[Read the article: WayLay]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Not a stupid brain; a naive brain. But housed in the wrong body, it might not have fared much better.
But I promise next time I see a disembodied floating brain, I will try to think of something to say to it, thanks to this cartoon.
-
At this point...
[Read the article: For the GOP, a do-over debate in Iowa?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What could possibly be the point in this? All the candidates have staked out their turf, and have only been repeating the same crap time after time; if a voter in Iowa STILL doesn't know who and what each candidate is, then that voter should be banned from the ballot box.
The only thing each new debate has offered is a chance that a candidate might blurt out some secret hidden thought that might finally sink their campaign: "Brown-skinned people are, all of them, the devil's foot soldiers." or, "We will not only outlaw abortion, we will make constant pregnancy mandatory for all women."
Providing, of course, that making a statement like that would be enough to disqualify even a Republican candidate. I'd like to think so, but I also have my doubts.