Letters to the Editor
Bryce Anderson
Published Letters: 31 Editor's Choice: 5
-
Glenn Greenwald: endorser of Ron Paul, fan of hate speech.
[Read the article: The Noxious Fruits of Hate Speech laws]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yeah, yeah, the joke has gotten old. I keep promising to stop, but I never do.
[caveat: I can't watch the video. Technical problems.]
I'm conflicted on the subject of hate speech laws. On the one hand, they really are open to abuse by the government that enforces them, they really do threaten to squelch valid ideas, and they do impose a chilling effect on the free expression of ideas. Also, given the nature of the Internet, they are nigh unto impossible to enforce.
On the other hand, hate speech is a poison, and it can do just as much to squelch free expression (by making the 'hated' afraid to speak up in their own defense) as the hate speech laws that everyone is dumping on. My feeling is that those who claim that squelching hate speech is clearly, unarguably more dangerous than the hate speech itself aren't taking its dangers seriously enough. I've been reading enough right-wing blogs, with their near-universal commitment to "exposing" Islam "for what it really is," and I have to wonder about the anti-regulationists' claims that hate speech will be condemned and ridiculed if we just give it a proper airing. It doesn't seem to be happening in this case (though I'm not sure a hate speech law would be the proper response either).
Suddenly I'm curious to know whether the Weimar Republic did anything to curb the torrent of anti-Jewish propaganda coming out of the Nazi party. If they did, that might be evidence that the anti-regulation position has some validity. If not, they would be hard-pressed to justify the claim that the Nazis would have risen even faster had they tried. History geeks, get on this one!
Finally, Glenn, I notice that Pro War has come out in full agreement with your position. Does that concern you?
P.S.: Good podcast/debate about hate speech laws, from Intelligence Squared. I thought the 'no regulation side' (which includes Christopher Hitchens) made some good points, but also came across as loudmouthed bullies.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6249980
-
Joan, you're being ridiculous.
[Read the article: The audacity of narcissism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Now, I've never voted for Nader. I've toyed with the idea, since Utah doesn't have a prayer of going blue in my lifetime. I even tried participating in an online vote-trading scheme in 2004, where my vote for Kerry would be cast by someone in a swing state, while I cast their vote for Nader in a state that didn't matter. They never found a match for me, though.
But while I've never voted for him, I've heard him speak a couple of times, and he strikes me as a principled guy, and far from the egomaniac you've portrayed.
You, like the rest of the media, seem to think that third party candidates are basically just Democrats and Republicans, only moreso, and also crazy. That's certainly the way you all tend to cover them. You portray their voters the same way, as Republicans and Democrats who would happily vote for the mainstream candidates if they weren't so bad at math.
The reason third partiers vote the way they do is because they have serious disagreements with the mainline parties. My differences with the Dems are deep, but not insurmountable. But you're implying that somehow the Democrats were "entitled" to Nader votes. That is simply ludicrous. You want someone's vote, you have two options. The first is to present a platform that makes the person want to vote for you (and I'm sorry, but "vote against your conscience or somebody even worse will win" doesn't cut it). The second is to change the system to get more information on the voter's actual preferences. I prefer condorcet voting, but range voting also sounds intriguing, and I'd even accept instant runoff as a vast improvement over the current travesty.
But it sounds like your solution is for people of conscience to stay out of the race while the two main choices duke it out. That is unacceptable. It's not just anti-democratic, it also makes for a poorer national debate. In 2004, the debate was between a guy who ordered an invasion of Iraq, and a guy who never questioned our right to invade, but did we have to go in so soon and botch it so badly? Only Nader was questioning the legitimacy of unilateral force. He also presented a stronger environmental platform. You can't say that he had nothing to bring to the race, and the accusations of narcissism seem like nothing more than shallow character assassination.
-
Clearing up a few misconceptions
[Read the article: Welcome to the compact fluorescent twilight zone]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Flicker is not a problem, if you look for the Energy Star certification. Energy Star bulbs use electronic ballasts, which means that the flicker happens 20,000 times a second, not 50 or 60 (as with old magnetic ballasts). If you can detect that, it's best that you don't say anything about it, because it means that you're a super-mutant, and the government will want to run some tests.
Electronic ballasts also reduce the amount of mercury needed in the bulb. Bulbs have about 4mg of mercury, but in a vaporous form that isn't readily absorbed by the body. Breaking a bulb in the house doesn't constitute an emergency. Open the windows for a while, sweep the remains into an airtight plastic bag, and take it wherever you would take hazardous waste. Salt Lake has a free drop-off, but YMMV. Laurel962's anecdote about a woman paying $2000 in cleanup costs may represent a real event, but the woman merely got bad advice. It certainly doesn't represent the real costs.
Even an improperly disposed bulb releases less mercury into the environment than the coal plant that would be generating the electricity to run the incandescent bulb.