Letters to the Editor
Paul Daniel Ash
Published Letters: 686 Editor's Choice: 2
-
Right
[Read the article: Col. Boylan's implosion accelerates]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Because whatever Glenn writes about is "the most important issue of the day."
-
@bamage
[Read the article: Col. Boylan's implosion accelerates]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Interacting with shooter, as I'm beginning to understand, is itself a form of self-pwnage.
I think I picket up Glenn's allergy to "why are you writing about this and not that," I should know better...
-
"Interaction with [TROLLS] = self-pwnage"
[Read the article: Col. Boylan's implosion accelerates]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I never had a little brother, so not responding to little needling attacks is a habit that's something I'm having to learn late in life.
There is, of course, the Swift Boat Principle (not responding to attacks doesn't make them go away), but I think in most cases, as with our resident trolls, it's pretty clear the silent treatment is best. It enhances one's peace of mind, helps avoid reinforcing a really negative view of the human animal, and improves the signal-to-noise ratio in comments.
Plus, even if you could teach a pig to sing, who on Earth would want to hear it?
-
I half expect Glenn to come back and say...
[Read the article: Col. Boylan's implosion accelerates]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"What's all this screaming?! You kids pipe down - I can turn this blog right around and there'll be no new post for anybody!"
-
"grunt"
[Read the article: Col. Boylan's implosion accelerates]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]pejorative and very negative
Garry, I can't see the use of that term in this context as negative at all. Glenn merely saying that by virtue of his rank and position, Boylan's statements carry different weight than that of a line soldier or Marine. And that's all.
Is "grunt" is like the "N-word," in that it's insulting when used by outsiders? If so, I didn't know that, I don't think Glenn does, either, though I don't know what his service record is.
-
Go in peace
[Read the article: Col. Boylan's implosion accelerates]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not trying to argue, Garry, but I do think you might have taken offense where none was intended. However, if you want to just stop talking about this now, I will respect that.
I really don't think Glenn was trying to say he thought some "low-level grunt" had written the email, though I will go back and see.
Again, though, if you would as soon drop this issue, it's fine.
-
@ondelette
[Read the article: Col. Boylan's implosion accelerates]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]她是所有地獄的婊子的媽！
-
Jordan Orlando may also not have had a little brother
[Read the article: Mukasey's nomination and the sudden opposition to "waterboarding"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Jordan, you do yeoman's work in engaging shooter, and your posts are always well-reasoned and complete. And if it's a good exercise for you, or posted for the enjoyment and edification of others, have at it man.
However, remember that he/she is not interested in learning anything from you... he/she will ignore anything you succeed in invalidating and change the subject to something more congenial. Indeed, you may want to recall the wise counsel of Matthew and not "cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."
Of course, as the elders say, YMMV.
-
The false choice
[Read the article: Mukasey's nomination and the sudden opposition to "waterboarding"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Jim White posed what is in my mind the central point:
Coercion may give you an answer, but in the time that it takes to determine the validity of the answer given, independent intelligence work will always give a more reliable answer.
(And may the Gods deliver unto us a more elegant way of quoting people than the old <blockquote>)
I've been agonizing, literally for years, over the validity of what's often posed as the Ticking Timebomb Scenario (or more insidiously, the Your Mom or Girlfriend Is About To Be Raped/Killed/Brutalised scenario). The moral and ethical issue is and always has been clear to me. What some -- including our own She/he-Who-Must-Not-Be Named ;-) -- are treating as a fundamental moral question of our age is really of grade-school simplicity: we do not torture because of who we are, not who they are. What has troubled me more is the mere possibility of such a horrendous choice: violate your humanity now to save many lives later. Not with the swift, awful necessity of the police sniper who takes down a gunman before he slaughters a roomful of schoolchildren, but the banality of a GS-5 pouring water over a gagged prisoner over and over and over again.
As it turns out, the scenario is, as is well known by pretty much all sentient beings, ridiculously unlikely, and the efficacy of torture even in that cartoonish scenario well disproven. Darius Rejali wrote a very interesting series on torture here at Salon:
http://search.salon.com/salonsearch.php?search=Darius+Rejali&breadth=salon
and there are numerous other reviews showing the same, from sources as diverse as bleeding hearts like the aforementioned to blood-and-guts milbloggers like those on StrategyPage:
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles2002/20020429.asp
As Jordan so eloquently pointed out, we simply cannot command the compliance of anyone with sufficient application of violence, no matter how steely our will or noble our cause. The mind-reading technologies Orwell envisioned have not come to pass. In the end, the desire to bend others to one's will speaks volumes about those who so ardently desire such control. The word irony is utterly insufficient to describe the fact that so many of them profess the worship of Jesus, who was tortured to death.
-
sense
[Read the article: Mukasey's nomination and the sudden opposition to "waterboarding"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How many innocent men, women and children are you prepared to violated, maimed and destroyed simply for your personal sense of security?
We're at that point: where the violation of our basic humanity is considered a reasonable trade for the mere "sense" of security - not the achievement, or even the pursuit of security.
Just to make ourselves feel better.
-
what kind of country?
[Read the article: The Ron Paul phenomenon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Is it true, as has been reported elsewhere, that Paul allowed a piece to be published under his name that included the statement "I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal?"
If so, I would definitely agree that Paul "defies and despises conventional and deeply entrenched Beltway assumptions about our political discourse and about what kind of country this is supposed to be."
I would also say he 'defies and despises' some assumptions that I hold considerably more dear.
-
"if you support abortion, you are supporting population control"
[Read the article: The Ron Paul phenomenon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One thing I have to say about this thread: it's unlikely Sugarman, GO, or anyone else is going to be able to hijack it....