Letters to the Editor
Saleem
Published Letters: 19 Editor's Choice: 4
-
It's not about whom we like the most, it's about who can win
[Read the article: Ginning up a fight between Clinton and Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think both Clinton and Obama would make fine presidents. But Clinton's instincts are those of an old-school politician: distort your opponent's views to score points, use your famous friends to defend you, etc. Obama seems much more direct and honest. I could be wrong, but I suspect his straightfowardness will resonate with Americans on both the left and the center, much as it has in his home state, while Clinton will be seen as a "more of the same" kind of politician.
Add to this the visceral hatred on the right for Clinton, and it seems to me a no-brainer that the Dems pick Obama as their candidate. The right-wing attitude towards Clinton disgusts me, but I think their hatred is so passionate that it cannot fail to influence the center-right leaning voters. If Clinton's primary opponent weren't someone as honest, likeable and intelligent as Obama, I would support her all the way. But Obama is the better candidate - even if they would both make excellent presidents (certainly they would in comparison to Bush).
-
Maybe moderation isn't so great
[Read the article: Should tots watch TV?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Several letter-writers chimed in with a sentiment that, at first glance, seems very reasonable: sure there's no benefit to watching TV, but it's probably not harmful either, so why not let kids watch 30 minutes or an hour a day?
I have a problem with this argument. First, as yet other letter writers pointed out, TV is there because it serves the purposes of advertisers. Even children's programs on public TV serve as long advertisements for character toys and other junk. Why let your child be manipulated into wanting things that he or she really doesn't need in order to be a happy, engaged, learning individual? Why set yourself up to be whined into buying this sort of crap?
Second, there's no denying that TV can be a pleasurable experience. But it is rarely satisfying in the way a good book is. It cannot compare to the experience of doing something difficult or constructive or even just useful, and feeling the sense of accomplishment from that. Having the TV on, whether it is the parents, siblings or the child who is watching, decreases the amount of time in which these other rewarding experiences can occur. That can't be good.
Third, you could argue that very young children (say, less than 2.5) are easily overruled when they ask for TV merchandise, and they aren't going to be reading on their own. But they WILL be running around interacting with their environment (including looking at picture books) if they are not watching TV. And if they are watching TV, they are forming a habit that will last a long time, and will be very difficult for parents to break later.
If you don't want your kids to be brainwashed, and if you'd rather they develop character than be defined by what they consume, turn the TV off and keep it off.
-
A lesson for dictators
[Read the article: The barefoot art of war]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The lesson here is that if dictators want to really control their people, they have to control the people's church and its leaders as well.
Good for the monks - what took them so long?
-
I hope...
[Read the article: The sad decline of Michael Mukasey]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I hope that Democratic senators on the judiciary committee absolutely insist that every nominee for attorney general put forward by Bush declare that waterboarding amounts to torture. No human being who disagrees with that statement deserves to be attorney general.
This is a great way for Democrats to sock it to Bush, over and over again. No Bush nominee can say he/she thinks waterboarding is torture, because then, as AG, s/he would have to start prosecuting. But I suspect most Americans don't want their government to torture either, so the Democrats are likely to have the support of the people if they keep insisting on an anti-waterboarding nominee. Such a nominee is likely to be independent of Bush, so the Democrats win no matter what.
That is, they win *if* they don't cave, as is their habit, and approve Bush's minion anyway.
-
JOELSPRAY: dead wrong
[Read the article: When did we become like Syria?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How ironic. One of Malek's main points is that it is wrong of George Bush and his thugs to capture people and send them off to be interrogated and tortured without any sort of judicial review. But that doesn't stop JOELSPRAY from insisting that she does not understand that "we have independent judicial and legislative branches, reviewing courts" etc.
Perhaps if JOELSPRAY were not so blinded by his anti-Arab racism, he would be more able to understand and appreciate Malek's excellent article.
-
I can't tell the difference in light color
[Read the article: Ask Pablo]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I replaced nearly all the incandescent bulbs in my house with compact fluorescents. I honestly can't tell the difference in light color (at least, once the bulbs have warmed up, which takes about a minute), and I certainly don't perceive any flicker. In fact, everything looks better in some rooms for the simple reason that I can use brighter bulbs and still save money.
For instance, my kitchen has 7 recessed can lights, which had 75 watt flood lights in them before. That's 525 watts whenever the kitchen lights were on (which is a lot). Now they all have 25 watt compact fluorescent flood lamps, which put out light equivalent to 100 watt incandescent bulbs. Total wattage is 175 - 66% less electricity usage for 33% more light.
Even if you can tell the difference between CFL and incandescent, unless it looks truly gruesome to you, it make a lot of sense to switch.
-
To King Lear Re: Efficiency
[Read the article: Ask Pablo]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Efifciency is a measure of how much of the energy that goes into the bulb is converted to light: it's 5% for incandescents and 15% for CFLs. So, CFLs are 3x as efficient and therefore they use 2/3 less electricity.